A study of more than 900 mold remediation and water mitigation claims showed that the median estimated cost of a mold remediation project was approximately $8,000. Similarly, water claims average around $7,000. Those costs drop by an average of 25 percent, though, when unnecessary processes or process overcharges are eliminated.
In both cases, unnecessary or improperly inflated charges generally stem from special treatment of mold as an airborne toxin. Lack of education and standard pricing awareness by remediation and mitigation contractors propagates certain myths in drying and mold remediation, which also reveal the fundamental thinking about mold as an airborne toxin. For example, drying is typically a predictable and planned process. Certain materials will dry at certain rates under specific conditions, but many contractors say mold complicates the process. Water mitigators may use dehumidification exclusively to avoid spreading mold spores, while mold remediators may attempt to kill mold before removing it. Both practices seem reasonable but are actually unnecessary. Correcting each practice can reduce the estimate while helping to resolve the claim more effectively.
The indoor environmental industry is peer-regulated with almost no federal guidelines for accredited training courses, so education about the fundamentals and specific issues is the key to avoid mold pitfalls. Specifically, there are some fallacies propagated by remediation and mitigation contractors that should be watched for and avoided.
Remediation with Antimicrobials
Antimicrobials are chemicals used to kill, suppress, or retard mold growth, and they appear in gas or liquid form. More than six percent of overcharges stem from the use of biocides or antimicrobials, but there are several problems with the practice.
First, industry guidelines unequivocally require mold and mold-infested materials to be removed for effective remediation. The Environmental Protection Agency says that complete sterilization, i.e. cleaning without removal, is "not possible or desirable." In contamination areas smaller than 10 square feet, the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning, and Restoration Certification guidelines allow mold to be cleaned with detergent, but most cases involving insurance claims require the mold to be removed. Also, biocides are generally water-based, meaning that once the biocide or antimicrobial dissipates, the water left behind can feed the mold. Neither the New York City Department of Health, IICRC guidelines, nor the EPA recommends using biocides in mold remediation.
Further, mold's possible effects on humans are not determined by its vitality. Humans react both to the toxins released by mold — the media-hyped mycotoxins — and to the mold itself, although a direct link between mold and health problems is still undetermined. In contrast, exposure to chemical antimicrobials is linked to adverse allergic reactions. Because of this, contractors in particular should be careful when fogging with them. While negative health effects from mold still are being debated, medical studies already confirm that biocides are harmful to humans.
Essentially, antimicrobial treatments are superfluous. In water claims, antimicrobials may be applied to surfaces to retard growth, but the contaminated materials need to be removed for remediation, resulting in equipment, labor, overhead, and profit and supply charges governed by reasonable pricing practices. The practice generally appears as "sanitizing," "sealant," or "fogging" and the accurate names "biocides" and "antimicrobials" on estimates. This should be a clue to have the claim reviewed or discuss the practice with the contractor to determine his reasoning.
Ozone Treatments
One of the surprising facts about mold is that its vitality or death is a moot point in remediation. Possible health effects are not abated when mold is dead, and an area cannot practically be sterilized. However, new renditions of antimicrobials persist, and ozone is one of the more established treatments that appear on mold remediation estimates.
The practice employs an ozone generator that floods a space with the colorless gas. Ostensibly, ozone kills mold, but the concentrations necessary to accomplish this are at least 90 times the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's safety limit for human exposure. As with more common chemical biocides and antimicrobials, ozone can be dangerous to humans, particularly at the levels used in treating mold.
Also, ozone treatment is ineffective for killing mold even at high-exposure levels, and the ozone itself degrades quickly under normal household circumstances. Further, effective mold remediation, according to IICRC guidelines, means removing mold whether it is alive or dead.
One of the important fundamental reasons for ozone treatment is killing the mold in a space, but eliminating all mold is simply not practical. According to the American Industrial Hygiene Association, active microbial growth can produce a concentration of more than one million spores per square inch. Using a biocide with 99 percent effectiveness would allow 10 viable spores per square inch to linger. If the moisture source remains, mold growth could recur, even after treatment with an extremely effective biocide. Ozone as biocide, since it is a particularly ineffective biocide, is pointless compared to industry guidelines for remediation.
Ozone treatments often appear camouflaged on remediation estimates and can comprise approximately 10 percent of an estimate's cost. Some of the common terms are "cold plasma," "O3 generation," and "oxidization." Regardless of the term, ozone should not be used in mold remediation because biocides in general are unnecessary in mold remediation.
Dehumidification vs. Air Movement
In 2000 and 2001, as mold gained attention and the lack of regulation became apparent, experts related it to environmental hazards such as asbestos. Mold seemed to cause respiratory illness and apparently produced "sick building syndrome." In reality, mold has not been connected with negative health effects and experts at the American Association of Governmental Industrial Hygienists say that evidence of exposure does not equal evidence of health response. Despite current guidelines defining mold remediation, water mitigation contractors often will avoid using air movers to dry areas with visible mold growth.
The contractor's intention is to avoid spreading mold spores, but the reality is a dramatic rise in equipment rental and extension in the time for drying without a justifying increase in safety or deterred mold growth.
A typical water mitigation project will dry in three days. Delineating the effects of not using air movers is difficult, but some cases have taken weeks to dry. By extending the amount of time materials are wet just to limit mold's spread, drying contractors actually allow mold to proliferate, sabotaging their initial efforts.
The solution is to contain the area according to industry guidelines, and use air movers and dehumidifiers in combination in order to dry substrates expeditiously. Containment confines mold spores to the affected area while allowing drying to proceed quickly. Caution should be taken to ensure makeup air for negative air machines does not have elevated humidity. When there is elevated outdoor humidity, recirculating air scrubbing is a reasonable alternative. Reducing drying time reduces equipment rental, a significant portion of mitigation cost, which can be more than 50 percent of the total estimate.
Aside from labor, dehumidification generally accounts for the largest cost in a water mitigation claim. Only using dehumidification enlarges an already significant portion of a claim's cost while possibly increasing the cost of a future mold remediation claim by allowing mold to proliferate before drying is complete.
In the end, air movement is essential for drying. Without it, substrates will dry slowly, increasing the amount of mold and the cost of the claim. Appropriate containment can eliminate the threat of mold spores escaping the contaminated area while allowing the drying process to proceed quickly, which can reduce the overall cost and probability of increased mold growth.
Line-Item Charges
Some other common charges related to airborne toxin control that should be scrutinized by adjusters include equipment rental, manipulation, monitoring, and cleaning as well as line-item charges for overhead and profit.
For equipment commonly used during water mitigation and mold remediation (i.e. negative air/scrubbers, dehumidifiers, HEPA vacuums, and air movers), the suggested generic rental charges are available in several databases. These recommended fees are not specific to the manufacturer and model of the piece of equipment in use, but most equipment usage should be based on industry guidelines. Rental periods will vary depending on the size of the project and equipment capacities, so a less-arbitrary determination of reasonable equipment charges is five percent of suggested retail price for a specific piece of equipment as identified by manufacturer and model. A five-percent charge allows the vendor to recover the purchase price in 20 days of rental. The rental of continued equipment usage, possibly hundreds of days, would cover costs for equipment maintenance and vendor profit.
Related to equipment rental rates are charges for equipment manipulation, monitoring, and decontamination. These charges are part of the overhead usage and are included in the equipment rental charge. Typically, the labor in water mitigation and mold remediation invoices and estimates contain sufficient costs to cover vendor overhead and profit whether charges are hourly or by unit costs. Line-item charges for overhead and profit, then, should only be applicable for subcontracted work on a project.
Mold as Toxin
The media hype bills mold as an airborne toxin, and theoretically, that's true. Certain molds secrete mycotoxins classified on par with mustard gas. Also, some people are allergic to the mold spores. Despite this, science has not proven a cause-effect relationship between mold and illness, and mold generally does not require the gyrations remediation companies use in the name of treating it as a serious airborne toxin akin to asbestos.
Some contractors include unnecessary costs on their estimates through lack of knowledge. The key to eliminating these costs is to work with contractors to separate the myth from the mold by applying respected industry guidelines and understanding the reasoning employed in those guidelines. By doing so, a claim adjuster can reduce costs by up to 25 percent.
Dale Miller is a manager at Environmental Claims Services, Inc. He can be reached at jdmiller@skyetec.com.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.