On the other side of that are the Remediators that are held to a Standard of Care that says they, as remediators, in remedying a mold “Condition” haven’t really remediated it until it is returned to “its normal ecological status”. The reasoning behind this is definition of a “Condition” of an environment can be a good one in some cases. While a bathroom may have had a leak causing mold to develop around a toilet, the moisture and mold may have had an effect on the indoor air quality of the adjoining room or system (like the HVAC) or could have affected the crawlspace below it. So, for a remediator trying to stay in compliance with the Standard of Care, they may want the IEP to inspection and generate the protocol as defined by the inspection.
That leads us to the question - where do we draw the line? In a home there can be a number of pre-existing problems. Both inspector and remediator alike has to use sound judgement and make sure to have legal disclosures and forms ready - just in case.
I only mention all of this to get your perspectives on where the industry is going as a whole. Too often inspectors (and the organizations that represent them) are looking after their best interest and expertise while the remediators (and the organizations that represent them) go a similar but different direction. A look at history shows us how one may make a big step while the other takes its time to address it before moving beyond the other. Hardly a concert effort towards understanding Action Levels, Permissible Levels, Remediation Verification Levels, etc., but that’s what’s been going on.
I’d like to hear your perspectives.