More on Mold

Originally Posted By: rbracklow
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Ladies & Gents.


Some interesting information from HUD, regarding Mold inspection. It seems that HUD is stating that all of their homes must be Toxic free, and appropriate steps must be taken to insure that no homes have any toxic element including Mold.

I will also post a statement from Leslie Boggs, from American Labs warning us, that imminently, Home Inspectors will be the required people to do the testing, whom else would be in a better position to do that - and quite frankly, I await the states to legislate just that.

I will attach HUD COFR 58 and also a narrative from Leslie Boggs outlining what we both feel pertinent. So Ladies and Gentlemen, start getting your Mold Sampling Training under your belts!!


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, DC 20410-7000
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
http
MEMORANDUM FOR: CPD Field Directors Multifamily Housing Field Directors Public Housing Field Directors Field Environmental Officers Program Environmental Clearance Officers FROM: Richard H. Broun, Director, Office of Community Viability, DPV SUBJECT: Highlights of changes to 24 CFR part 58 and related conforming changes to 24 CFR parts 50, 574, 582, 583, 970 This memorandum highlights the final rule changes published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2003 (68 FR 56115 ? 56131) to environmental regulation at 24 CFR Part 58 ? ?Environmental Review Procedures for Entities Assuming HUD Environmental Responsibilities? (hereafter Part 5![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif). The rule will be effective October 29, 2003. The rule updates the list of 24 HUD programs and related assumption authorizations, makes conforming changes to environmental provisions in certain program regulations with a cross-reference to Part 58, and otherwise updates and clarifies HUD?s environmental policy and procedures including conforming changes to HUD?s regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which govern when HUD staff performs the environmental review. The final rule is posted on the HUD Environmental Website at:
://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/energyenviron/environment/lawsandregs/regs/part58/changes.pdf
Two major changes are found at ?? 58.22 and 58.5(i)(2): (1) Section 58.22 clarifies that all project participants are prohibited from undertaking projects or activities pending HUD?s approval of the recipient?s request for release of funds if the activity or project would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. Previously there was some confusion as to whether the limitations applied to all the partners in the project. However, ?58.22 clearly and unambiguously states that limitations on activities pending environmental clearance apply to recipients and any participator in the development process, including public or private nonprofit or for-profit entities, or any of their contractors; and (2) Section 58.5(i)(2) states HUD?s policy that a project site is free of hazardous materials that could affect the health and safety of the occupants and specifies the criteria necessary in an environmental review to support HUD?s policy. These changes were made to conform to the longstanding provision at 24 CFR 50.3(i). HUD regulations do not require an ASTM Phase I analysis, although a Phase I report or equivalent analysis is a possible means for complying with ?58.5(i)(2). All changes to 24 CFR part 58, as well as conforming changes to 24 CFR part 50 are highlighted in the attachment.
Attachment Highlights of Changes to 24 CFR part 58 (68 FR 56115, September 29, 2003): ? Programs and activities subject to Part 58 has expanded. The Supplementary Section of the rule lists the names of the 26 HUD programs subject to Part 58 (see page 56125). Section 58.1(b) provides the specific statutory authority allowing these programs to use Part 58 procedures. ? A new provision at ?58.1(c) clarifies that activities assisted with repayments to a revolving loan fund initially assisted with HUD funds are subject to the environmental review requirements only if the HUD funding program regulation continue to treat the activities as subject to the Federal requirements. ? Terms, abbreviations and definitions have been revised to reflect conformity with the applicable programs and activities subject to Part 58. ? A new section at ? 58.4(c) clarifies that under NAHASDA and Section 184 program, Indian tribes have a choice whether or not to assume environmental responsibilities under Part 58. ? HUD environmental standards in ?58.5 (i)(2) replaces a reference to the obsolete HUD Notice 79-33 on toxic chemicals and radioactive materials with updated requirements regarding contamination including a policy that project sites be free of contamination that could affect the health and safety of occupants or conflict with the intended utilization of the property. The new requirement is similar to that identified in the longstanding policy at 24 CFR 50.3(i), and reads: ?58.5 (i) HUD environmental standards. * * * (2)(i) Also, it is HUD policy that all properties that are being proposed for use in HUD programs be free of hazardous materials, contamination, toxic chemicals and gases, and radioactive substances, where a hazard could affect the health and safety of occupants or conflict with intended utilization of the property. (ii) The environmental review of multifamily housing with five or more dwelling units (including leasing), or non-residential property, must include the evaluation of previous uses of the site or other evidence of contamination on or near the site, to ensure that the occupants of proposed sites are not adversely affected by any of the hazards listed in ?58.5(i)(2)(i). (iii) Particular attention should be given to any proposed site on or in the general proximity of such areas as dumps, landfills, industrial sites, or other locations that contain, or may have contained, hazardous wastes. (iv) The responsible entity shall use current techniques by qualified professionals to undertake investigations determined necessary.
? The list of recipients that are not responsible entities that may object to the non-recipient responsible entity conducting the environmental review on the basis of performance, timing, or compatibility of objectives has been revised and updated at ?58.11(b). Added were HOPWA recipients; excluded were Indian housing recipients. ? Major changes in ?58.22 include the following: (1) Subsection (a) through (c) makes clear the following: (i) limitations on activities apply not only to recipients, but also to other project participants, such as public or private non-profit or for-profit entities and their contractors; (ii) undertaking an activity that would have adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of alternatives, as well as committing non-HUD funds to such activity is prohibited before the request for release of funds and environmental certification have been approved; and (iii) in accord with NEPA regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1506.1(b)), if a recipient is considering an application from a prospective subrecipient or beneficiary and is aware that the applicant is about to take an action within the recipient?s jurisdiction that is prohibited by ? 58.22(a), the recipient shall promptly notify the applicant that the recipient will take appropriate action to ensure that the objectives and procedures of NEPA are achieved. Conforming changes made to ??58.72 and 58.75 to cover other partners in the development process; (2) Subsection (e) reflects a new statutory amendment that permits an organization, consortium or affiliate under the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) to advance non-grant funds to acquire land prior to the completion of the environmental review process. This is generally considered a choice limiting action that otherwise is prohibited under ?58.22(a). However, ?58.22(e) makes clear that advancing non-grant funds for property acquisition is done at the risk of the purchaser regarding the outcome of the environmental review. In addition, under ?58.22(a), HUD grant funds may not be committed or expended for land acquisition prior to completion of the environmental review and HUD?s approval of the request for release of funds (RROF). Finally, Part 58 continues to prohibit project-related physical actions on any land so acquired with non-grant funds, such as construction, prior to completion of the environmental review and approval of the RROF; There were no policy changes to the subsections covering options agreements and relocation. The entire Section reads: ?58.22 Limitations on activities pending clearance. (a) Neither a recipient nor any participant in the development process, including public or private nonprofit or for-profit entities, or any of their contractors, may commit HUD assistance under a program listed in
?58.1(b) on an activity or project until HUD or the State has approved the recipient?s RROF and the related certification have been approved, neither a recipient nor any participant in the development process may commit non-HUD funds on or undertake an activity or project under a program listed in ?58.1(b) if the activity or project would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. (b) If a project or activity is exempt under ?58.34, or is categorically excluded (except in extraordinary circumstances) under ?58.35(b), no RROF is required and the recipient may undertake the activity immediately after the responsible entity has documented its determination as required in ?58.34(b) and ?58.35(d), but the recipient must comply with applicable requirements under ?58.6. (c) If a recipient is considering an application from a prospective subrecipient or beneficiary and is aware that the prospective subrecipient or beneficiary is about to take an action within the jurisdiction of the recipient that is prohibited by ?58.22(a), then the recipient will take appropriate action to ensure that the objectives and procedures of NEPA are achieved. (d) An option agreement on a proposed site or property is allowable prior to the completion of the environmental review if the option agreement is subject to a determination by the recipient on the desirability of the property for the project as a result of the completion of the environmental review in accordance with this part and the cost of the option is a nominal portion of the purchase price. There is no constraint on the purchase of an option by third parties that have not been selected for HUD funding, have no responsibility for the environmental review and have no say in the approval or disapproval of the project. (e) Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP). In accordance with section 11(d)(2)(A) of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 12805 note), an organization, consortium, or affiliate receiving assistance under the SHOP program may advance nongrant funds to acquire land prior to completion of an environmental review and approval of a Request for Release of Funds (RROF) and certification, notwithstanding ?58.22(a). Any advances to acquire land prior to approval of the RROF and certification are made at the risk of the organization, consortium, or affiliate and reimbursement for such advances may depend on the result of the environmental review. This authorization is limited to the SHOP program only and all other forms of HUD assistance are subject to the limitations in paragraph (a) of this section.
(f) Relocation. Funds may be committed for relocation assistance before the approval of the RROF and related certification for the project provided that the relocation assistance is required by 24 CFR part 42. ? The rule revises the first sentence of ? 58.33(b) concerning when and how the pre-submission comment periods for the Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI Notice) and/or the Notice of Intent to Request a Release of Funds (NOI/RROF) may be combined with the post-submission comment period for the Request for Release of Funds (RROF). Under the final rule, the combined procedure could be used if funds are needed on an emergency basis due to a locally declared emergency as well as during a Presidentially declared disaster and there is immediate need for public action to protect public safety. ? Three of the NEPA categorical exclusions in ?58.35 are revised, one new exclusion is added, and conforming changes are made to ?50.20: (1) For rehabilitation, a new subsection is added at ?58.35(a)(3)(i) that allows a categorical exclusion in the case of a building for residential use (with one to four units) when the density is not increased beyond four units, the land use is not changed, and the footprint of the building is not increased in a floodplain or in a wetland. (2) For individual actions at ?58.35(a)(4), the rule clarifies that the exclusion for an individual action on a one-to four-family dwelling would apply when there are no more than four dwelling units on any site, whether in one or multiple buildings. (3) For leasing and equity loans, ?58.35(a)(5) is revised to clarify that acquisition for the same use includes leasing and equity loans; (4) For supplemental assistance (including insurance or guarantee), the rule adds at ? 58.35(b)(7) a new exclusion from NEPA and ?58.5 environmental requirements any approval of supplemental assistance to complete a project previously approved under Part 58, if the project or activities have already been environmentally assessed by the same responsible entity, unless a reevaluation of the environmental findings is required under ?58.47(a). ? The rule revises ??58.72 and 58.75 to conform to the changes in ?58.22. ? For the following HUD programs, the rule replaces the reference to environmental review procedures of Part 50 with a reference to Part 58 procedures. The new reference also reflects the applicability of Part 50 procedures in those cases when HUD determines under ?58.11 that HUD itself will be responsible to perform environmental responsibilities: (1) Housing Opportunities for Persons With Aids (HOPWA) ?574.510; (2) Shelter Plus Care ?582.230; (3) Supportive Housing ?583.230; and
(4) Demolition or Disposition of Public Housing Projects ?970.4 Highlights of Changes to 24 CFR part 50: ? The rule clarifies at ?50.19(b)(15) that activities to assist homebuyers to purchase existing dwelling units also applies to dwelling units under construction and is categorically excluded, not subject to the Federal laws and authorities cited in ?50.4. Activities to assist homebuyers include closing costs and downpayment assistance, interest buydowns and similar activities that result in the transfer of title. ? Conforming changes to categorical exclusions at ? 50.20 were made to make Part 50 consistent with similar changes made in ?58.35 and explained above. Internal HUD Distribution: Cc : CPD CHRON 7233 DPVR C.BIEN 7250 DPV R.BROUN 7244 ALL CPD OFFICE DIRECTORS Identification Lines:DPRV :SCHOPP :dpr 9/30/03 Code :Sept. 30 ? part 58 Correspondence Code Originator DPVR Concurrence Concurrence Concurrence Concurrence Concurrence Name C.BIEN Date Official Record Copy U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development form HUD-713.1 (02/03) Previous edition is obsolete.
Internal HUD Distribution: Identification Lines: Correspondence Code Originator Concurrence Concurrence Concurrence Concurrence Concurrence Name Date Official Record Copy U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development form HUD-713.1 (02/03) Previous edition is obsolete.

Ok, now Leslie Boggs e-mail to me;

It's not. What it does state is that these clearances are required. And due
to this requirement, will open up the amount of investigations. Home
Inspectors are already called out to perform other inspections, it is only
logical they could also perform the mold test. This new policy by HUD only
opens up the amount of investigations that will occur. A VERY powerful
argument for HI's to perform investigations...marketing push for them to
make a high ROI.

So now, this is from the experts which I don't believe anyone cane refute, but some dyed in the wool types, will!!

Ron.


--
The highest compliment my clients can give me, is the referral of their Friends, Family and Business Associates!

NorCal NACHI Chapter Founder and Chairman.

Originally Posted By: dvalley
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.







David Valley


MAB Member


Massachusetts Certified Home Inspections
http://www.masscertified.com

"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Okay. It took several readings (yawn) to finally find this in there.


"Also, it is HUD policy that all properties that are being proposed for use in HUD programs be free of hazardous materials, contamination, toxic chemicals and gases, and radioactive substances, where a hazard could affect the health and safety of occupants or conflict with intended utilization of the property."

Now, back to the first statements Ron made, and this one in particular "It seems that HUD is stating that all of their homes must be Toxic free".

That's not what that says.

Let's go through this, step-by-step.

Also, it is HUD policy that all properties that are being proposed for use in HUD programs be free of:
1) hazardous materials,
2) contamination,
3) toxic chemicals and gases,
4) and radioactive substances,
where a hazard could affect the health and safety of occupants or conflict with intended utilization of the property.

Now, admittedly, that is not the HUD language, but of whoever put that together.

What it does not state is this "homes must be Toxic free".

Even if it did stated "toxic free", before mold is included in that, mold must be identified and listed as a "toxin". That would mean that federal guidelines would need to be created to establish: 1) mold is a toxin, 2) how much mold is okay, 3) what types of mold is not considered to be a toxin, etc.

Ron, you took a big leap in faith trying to (I think) justify mold testing and inspections by HIs.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Ron,


I hate to say it, byt Jerry's spin on the attached verbiage is pretty much on target. Aside from that, the HUD language distinguished between multi-family projects of 5 or more families, and dwellings housing between 1 and 4 families. Mention is made as to proximity to landfills and other toxic sites.

One thing I disagree with Jerry about is the government determining that mold is a toxin. It is. But, what HASN'T been established is acceptable or uncaaeptable levels of mold.

I would ask Leslie to tell us which standards for determination of an acceptable level of mold in a dwelling has been blessed by HUD, FEMA, CDC, or EPA

Ideally, she could respond directly. For HUD to recognize a dwelling as acceptable or unacceptable, they must referr to some federally adopted guidelines. Where can we find these? ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)


--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

Originally Posted By: rbracklow
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jerry, Jerry, Jerry,


I think if someone placed a sign in front of you that stated "Mold testing is a Law" you would find a disagreement with that.

The intent here, is to show everyone that it is a matter of time that we HI's will be doing this testing. Gentlemen, California is legislating exactly this. There are numerous topics in legislature referring to the Mold as a Toxin situation, after all Stachy Mold is what, a toxin. Heavy saturation of Mold even if non-toxic can be deadly.

The inevitable is just around the corner whether or not you want to believe it.

I did not want to down load the entire HUD's CFR 58, and like all Government agencies they never actually state what their intent is, rather they want the Industry to develop the actual criteria, such as the EPA did with RCRA (Recourse Reclamation Act) where they only gave guidelines, ergo the same thing with HUD!!

Read between the lines. Jerry you may not think this is a fact, but unfortunately there are experts out there that believe different.

Ron.


--
The highest compliment my clients can give me, is the referral of their Friends, Family and Business Associates!

NorCal NACHI Chapter Founder and Chairman.

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Ron, Ron, Ron,


Read THE lines, not between them.

HIs will not, hopefully (at least if they know what they are doing), be doing mold testing.

Other than those rip off artists who are currently engaged in Mold is Gold.

Rape is wrong, whether or not some government official says it is okay. Unqualified and underqualified people doing mold testing is also wrong.

Ask me how I really feel about HIs doing mold testing.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: rbracklow
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



No Jerry, I’d rather not. Since you and I, are not on the same page. Just your opinion, right!!


Hey, I and others feel that doing Mold Inspections is a great service, not disservice to the public and I feel that it is just a matter of time that we WILL be doing these type of Inspections. Well, I happen to also think that "Mold is Gold"!! ![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif) ![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif)

Oh well!!

Ron.


--
The highest compliment my clients can give me, is the referral of their Friends, Family and Business Associates!

NorCal NACHI Chapter Founder and Chairman.

Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I actually believe that , if anything, the EPA and CDC are preparing position statements regarding this very subject. The CDC is actually pretty pissed off at the way this cottage industry has grown. There was serious talk of clamping down pretty hard on the hucksters.


As to California enacting legislation, there must still be ratified levels. To date, there are none. As to the toxicity of one mold over another, the jury is still out on that one. All mold is toxic at one level or another, depending on a person's sensitivity, which varies from person to person.

That's the whole problem...

I'd like Leslie to chime in...


--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

Originally Posted By: rwills
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Here we go again! eusa_whistle.gif


Ron, I’m with you on this one! Just as the EPA set levels for radon in homes, the same will happen for mold. As far as a persons sensitivity level well, determining the level and type in the home will have a bearing on the individuals sensitivity. The compiled data will only help their physician to determine a course of action. An air quality or carpet sample can determine any and all allergic or toxic substances found in a home past or present, more and more individuals want to have a home tested to see if there may be contamination harmful to them, and that is their choice. Ron, there will always be naysayers no matter what you do! That’s their choice! So be it. Just as some believe radon testing is a hoax, statistics show different, and offering a service to help a client alleviate these problems is just that, a service!



Bob Wills - MAB Chairman


BW Inspection Services


Warminster, Pa.


http://www.bwinspections.com

Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob,


We're not saying it's a hoax. What we're saying is that, unlike with Radon, rthere are no acceptable or unacceptable levels for mold exposure.

The EPA levels were determined after years of research and testing. There is no such data available on mold, yet. The CDC has stated to congress that it will be years before they are ready to set levels. They also stated that te mold testing industry feeds on peoples fears, rather than fact, and that trends in this particular industry are disturbing.

Ron posted something about HUD requiring testing for toxins, including mold. So, which levels will HUD accept for a dwelling that falls within an acceptable tolerance?

That is what we're looking for, here. Leslie owns a mold testing lab. I believe her interpretation may be wishful thinking for now, with regard to mold testing in these homes. I'm still waiting for her to chime in with regard to my question on acceptable levels or mold in the home, and what governmental agency has set those levels. California has none, to date.


--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

Originally Posted By: rwills
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote from Joe F:“What we’re saying is that, unlike with radon, there are no acceptable or unacceptable levels for mold exposure”.


Joe, I agree, that's why I stated:
"Just as the EPA set levels for radon in homes, the same will happen for mold".

Joe F Quote:"There is no such data available on mold, yet. The CDC has stated to congress that it will be years before they are ready to set levels. They also stated that te mold testing industry feeds on peoples fears".

To date you are correct, there are no set levels for HUD or anyone else for that matter to use as there is with radon, again, I said there will be, even if it does take 2,3 or more years. Meanwhile, a client can read a report, and by comparing their indoor and outdoor levels and types of mold and/or toxins found can choose if it's too high or not for themselves, we're merely giving them a tool to make their decisions as with a radon test, home inspection, water test, etc. On the fear issue, for a lot of people it is more than a fear, it may be a threat. Unfortunately, there will be scavengers out there that will take advantage of the "Mold is Gold" wagon. But there are also sellers that will not disclose or will even try to hide these issues from buyers thereby, turning that "gold" issue over to them to pay for remediaters and remodelers because the issue was not caught in the beginning. Remember, not so long ago, radon (The other environmental issue), was in this very same boat, and as I stated, there are those that still look at this issue as a hoax. Hell, I've heard people claim that a home inspection itself is a joke, ripoff, etc, etc they still ordered one though!


--
Bob Wills - MAB Chairman
BW Inspection Services
Warminster, Pa.
http://www.bwinspections.com

Originally Posted By: dkeough
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Florida is trying to pass a bill that would make you register with the state and take an approved training class.


Here is the bill

http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2004/House/bills/analysis/pdf/h1215.br.pdf


Here is the staff analysis

http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2004/House/bills/analysis/pdf/h1215.br.pdf


Originally Posted By: kwilliams
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I like the no new taxes = n/a… ha… Know new taxes…



Member - MAB


http://www.nachi.org/convention2006.htm

Originally Posted By: rbracklow
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Well Joe F. and Jerry P., what have you got to say about David Keough’s Post regarding Florida - California is next, and I am certain that other states will fall in line!!


You folks may argue against this, BUT, it is inevitable and just a matter of time that Mold will require inspection as part of a HI's inspection.

Your thoughts Gentlemen?

Ron.


--
The highest compliment my clients can give me, is the referral of their Friends, Family and Business Associates!

NorCal NACHI Chapter Founder and Chairman.

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



rbracklow wrote:
WYou folks may argue against this, BUT, it is inevitable and just a matter of time that Mold will require inspection as part of a HI's inspection.

Your thoughts Gentlemen?

Ron.


I read the same posts you did, clicked on the link and read it too.

However, apparently you are not reading the same words I am.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: Tom Turner
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Ron,


Two years ago I took the mold course taught by Hometest at the KREIA conference in Lexington, KY. Learned a lot about mold. Scared the H$#l out of me. ![icon_eek.gif](upload://yuxgmvDDEGIQPAyP9sRnK0D0CCY.gif) When I got back home I checked with my attorney about mold testing. He told what his rates would be when (not if) litigation was started. He and other attorneys that I have talked to say that any lawyer worth his pay can prove that a home inspector is not qualified to do mold testing. ![icon_eek.gif](upload://yuxgmvDDEGIQPAyP9sRnK0D0CCY.gif) Only people like Industrial Hygienist, CIH, CSP and the like will be able to properly defend their testing procedures in a court of law. I chose to sub all mold testing to these type people. If KY and IN require HI's to do mold testing I will continue to sub this work out. Until the industry has standards me and my inspectors will stay away.

Tom


Originally Posted By: rbracklow
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Gentlemen,


Perhaps it is semantics that set us apart? I am talking about sampling for Mold, always have spoken of sampling and will always speak of sampling for Mold!!

I do not test for Mold, I only take a sample, send it to the Lab, they test the sample!! There is no reason for angst about Mold Sampling in this manner.

Attorney's will always read you the doomsday act in everything. When have you ever had an Attorney that told the truth!! It is their business to paint you a woe picture, that's how they make their money, period.

You all know the story of opinions, this is mine, backed up with facts, so far I have not heard from you negative people anything remotely even representing a detailed fact to counter my arguments, just opinions!! If you don't want to take samples, then don't, but leave the ones that want to alone, without giving negative opinions!!

Hey Jerry, where's the Beef??

Ron.


--
The highest compliment my clients can give me, is the referral of their Friends, Family and Business Associates!

NorCal NACHI Chapter Founder and Chairman.

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



rbracklow wrote:
Gentlemen,

Perhaps it is semantics that set us apart? I am talking about sampling for Mold, always have spoken of sampling and will always speak of sampling for Mold!!

I do not test for Mold, I only take a sample, send it to the Lab, they test the sample!! There is no reason for angst about Mold Sampling in this manner.


I guess it is semantics.

Like "I do not test for Mold, I only take a sample, send it to the Lab, they test the sample!!"

What you really mean is "I test for Mold, I decide what to sample and where to take the sample. Then I send it to the Lab, where they test the sample."

I'm not speeding Officer, I'm NOT driving, I am just steering and adjusting the go and stop pedals. The manufacturer and gas company are speeding, they made the car and made it so it goes. Me? I'm just hanging on for dear life. Dang, does this go or what.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: rbracklow
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jerry,


There you go with sarcasm again and negativity! ![icon_evil.gif](upload://1gvq2wV2azLs27xp71nuhZOKiSI.gif) Have you ever answered a point of fact question and/or answered in a non threatening manner, or do you get your jollies disagreeing with everyone, which you seem to like to do. No wonder you're not at ASHI any longer, they probably got tired of your BS there also!!

Sorry, I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth. Again just like I said earlier, if you don't like taking Mold Samples, your a big boy so don't, but don't ridicule people who do, and make good money doing so.

My posts are to help people make a rational decision, and to provide news and information. When was the last time you did the same and not trying to scare them out of their wits.

Ron.


--
The highest compliment my clients can give me, is the referral of their Friends, Family and Business Associates!

NorCal NACHI Chapter Founder and Chairman.

Originally Posted By: dvalley
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



when we suspect there is mold in/on the property being inspected.


If you see, what you think is mold, then you should make note of it in your inspection report, and let your client deal with the notation on your report, by hiring a professionally trained Mold Specialist to do this sort of testing.


![](upload://bepdXrUrjgDzmB7FAbhEUUP8SRe.gif)


--
David Valley
MAB Member

Massachusetts Certified Home Inspections
http://www.masscertified.com

"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."