Is 72-hour water damage rule MUS (made up stuff)?

[LisaWagnerCRS]

Do any of you have a reference (besides the IICRC S-520 standard) for the study that backs the 72-hour rule in water damage that says a category 1 (clear water) can move to category 3 (black water) in that time in regards to the affected contents?

I wrote about this on the dirt blog because I'm trying to shake out some of the things we say "are true" in this business, but when you dig a bit deeper, you see that there is no science backing it up.

I'd like someone to correct me on this one - please show me the science on this 72-hour rule, there has to be SOMETHING out there... I just can't imagine they'd just put it in without any proof. That would just make no sense.

Here's my post on MUS -
http://realdirtoncri.wordpress.com/2010 ... us-vs-mus/

Also... I'm joining Jim Pemberton on IAQ Radio this Friday in case any of you are REALLY super bored Friday at 12pm Eastern...
http://www.iaqradio.com

Jim will have entertaining things to share... and me, I'll probably just bitch about the same stuff I always bitch about.

You know me... always horribly predictable....

:-)

Lisa

 

[Ron Werner]

I don't know if there is any data to back it up either but isn't there a delamination issue with carpet saturated for more than 3days?

 

[Jim Pemberton]

The issue is whether water that remains in a built environment for 72 hours automatically should be considered as dangerous as sewage.

Water is the most important nutrient needed for life, but it only supports existing lifeforms, it does not create them.

So the question is: If there are no pathogens in the environment at the time of the water intrusion, does the fact that, say, a carpet or area rug is wet that long that it should not be restored? I suppose the comments that such water intrusion "can" become category 2, and ultimately category 3, water is the key term, not "will".

But that comment has created an inference that 72 hour exposure to water "will" make it category 3 water.

Some carpet cleaners leave carpet wet that long after cleaning as a standard operating procedure after all...............

 

[Lee Stockwell]

Several variables that are born out by real life experience:

1. How "clean" it was to start
2. Temperature (very cold slows activity)
3. Prior flooding activity (often unknown)

 

[Jim Pemberton]

I agree Lee.

The problem is often that people take the exception and make it the rule.

When you think of the stuff that contaminates a carpet/structure before a loss, I guess the question is then:

If the carpet is loaded with pesticide, or pathogens, right at the time of the flood, then wouldn't it be category 1 immediately?

And, as another thought, how much mold grows in water that sits an inch deep on carpet?

There are no easy answers. I guess I'd like to see some more questions before we try to find the simple and easy answers.

 

[Desk Jockey]

We always evaluate each loss before making any blanket statements.

As Lee mentioned lots of variables, some can amplify the situation others can retard it. It's a thinking man's game and something written in a book, no matter how well meaning the intent, can substitute what you see, feel, smell.

 

[Ryan]

Lisa,

Next time it rains set out a 5 gallon bucket and let it collect water. Next, store that bucket in your basement for 72 hours... then smell it and get back to us.

 

[Lee Stockwell]

Most of us DRINK water with a worse history than that...

 

[Ryan]

:shock:

Lee, I don't know about Kentucky, but the water here in Arkansas is clean.

 

[Larry Cobb]

Lisa;

There was some research and science behind the 72 hour standard.

It was a PHD from University of Las Vegas who did the original study.

He has given talks at the Dri-Eaz annual seminars.

He was an expert on fungi and toxins from them.

I'll see if I can find his name when I get to the plant tomorrow.

Larry

 

[LisaWagnerCRS]

Lisa;

There was some research and science behind the 72 hour standard.

It was a PHD from University of Las Vegas who did the original study.

He has given talks at the Dri-Eaz annual seminars.

He was an expert on fungi and toxins from them.

I'll see if I can find his name when I get to the plant tomorrow.

Larry

I'd like to know that Larry... because I've scoured the internet to no avail - and asked a host of people I feel are "in the know" on these things, more on the RIA side of our world, and IAQA, and have yet to find someone who says "yes that's right."

I don't mind if it IS... I just want to see the science backing it up.

Thanks!
Lisa

 

[Dale]

Hi Lisa:

Lisa's question is good. And I appreciate her recent mind opening comments about the IICRC. But I do think that she will find the same thing that I did; that when I sued the IICRC, everybody was encouraging me, but nobody helped back me. So my little bit of money soon ran out.

The IICRC does have a place, and it’s with cleaning only. So what I don't understand is, why anybody cares what the IICRC writes in water damage or mold standards? True someone has to, but when it comes to courts, most Judges don’t know who the IICRC is, and they all know the EPA. So why not just keep with standards written by the EPA? The EPA’s standards are simply written so as to take the greed out of mold & water damage. When I worked volunteer work @ Katrina damaged area, no one mentioned the IICRC standards. But we did hear from the EPA who was very active there with volunteers, and they didn’t make issues over anything but bottom-line results.

IMO the IICRC standards were written to greedily “protect” the Remediator by making him think he has a law that no one can abide by except one who is certified by the IICRC. But they are only protected in their minds. On the other-hand when the EPA writes standards on such sensitive issues as MOLD CLEANUP IN SCHOOLS, they are not afraid that the IICRC standard will override theirs in court. Even though the IICRC standard is much more detailed, and not meant to be understood, even by Judges. The EPA takes a simplistic approach, because they realize that mold is trying to be turned to gold.

In addition to flooring inspections, I do mold/water damage inspections ( see http://www.flooringinspector.com under resume/cv). When people call me abut the above I send them to the EPA website. I tell them to take the simple EPA course; and that they can do the cleanup themselves, or hire someone else and supervise that it is done by EPA standards. Then after it is complete, if they want it inspected, I will come in, and check the water damage results and mold spore count, and write a certified clearance report. IMO, if the building passes, no matter how they got to that point should not matter to me. I can now write a report, showing the evidence that there are no problems, and I don’t worry about it being done by IICRC standards.

No I’ve never been to court on one of these, and I don’t know of anyone else who has. But if I go, I’m not afraid of anyone quoting the IICRC standards. And I’m not going to spend a lot of time now worrying about why they put ANYTHING specific into standards. I also understand that the IAQA (a respected organization) is working on writing water damage, and mold cleanup remediaton standards. I know that they train Remediators & Inspectors both so I look forward to reading them.

What I have seen in court (with flooring inspections) is this, Lawyers accusing me of being trained by biased organizations. And I would expect the same thing in a water damage or mold remediation situation if I used IICRC standards. Of course the Lawyer is only trying a means to make me look foolish, and tossed out as an “Expert Witness” (LOL, I can do that myself). In order to overcome such a situation I just show the facts and try to prove them. As such when I have a much more powerful organization than the IICRC to quote, I’m going to quote the EPA.

Sincerely,
Dale

 

[Desk Jockey]

I've always felt that with the the EPA being a Guideline is less stringent than the IICRC which is an actual Standard.

While it may seem like semantics isn't there a lot more leeway with a guideline and not a Standard?

You measured against the Standard and held accountable for your actions.

Both may achieve "Best Practices" but the guideline allows for more interpretation on the restorers part than the Standard of care.

Personally we are going to error on the side of safety and follow best practices to the point that someone (building owner, homeowner, renter) is willing to take on the liability if any different.


While their is some good information here, it is very simplistic and appears more for a property owner than a professional.

http://www.epa.gov/mold/pdfs/table1.pdf


http://www.epa.gov/mold/table2.html

 

[Dale]

Hi Doc:

Which is better, a powerful government "guideline" or a self proclaimed industry "standard? The EPA accomplished the purpose; it just does so in no nonsense approach. And in fact they say that they do not endorse ANY others standards. With that said, could I not also get a bunch of cronies together and write a standard? What would a judge do if we were in court with our “standards” and an Attorneys had the EPA non endorsement in hand?

I know that this is hard to accept if wev'e spent a bunch on money getting IICRC cerfications (as I have) but the greed fact is so obvious that I don't want to have the finger pointed at me. If the IICRC are anything but self proclaimed "experts" why can't they get their standards endorced?

Thx,
Dale

 

[Desk Jockey]

Hey Dale, good to see you posting here!

I'm not siding with the IICRC, the IICRC Standards are not my bible as they for others. However being a Standard specific to our industry I am always leary of doing something outside the Standard that I would not be able to justify in court.

I don't know which would win in court?

I personally think if you're adhering to your industry specific standards of care, it would be difficult to argue that the EPA guideline which were written with language intended for the non professional, would weigh heavier than your own industries best practices?

 

[Dale]

Thanks Richard.

I just realized who Doc is. Good to see you too. You probably are right, but please let me relate why I think that the IICRC need to open their eyes up, in order to have some real backing:

From my understanding of the definitions of guidelines and standards, is that standards are guidelines that have ACCPTANCE as backing. So whose backing is more important “industry leaders” or the federal government in a court of law?

Here are 2 real examples of what happened to me that is provable by court transcripts.(#1) I inspected a floor and quoted “industry standards. The opposing Lawyer brought up that I had no TN Inspectors license, and that industry standards taught by a non- accepted government agency that had reason of bias. He was about to get me thrown out except…

That I weeded enough evidence into my comments that the judge wanted to hear how it fit together.

After that case I joined NACHI (home inspectors association), and I now am a certified Home Inspector. NACHI is huge and they write standards. However again (#2) I was in court as a Flooring Inspector. It was brought up that I was certified by NACHI, but that I lacked 28 credit hrs out of 145 to get a license (and I am not interested in being a Home Inspector) so that I could not comment on anything relating to structural problems that caused the flooring problem. Now here in the state of TN it at least does @ least recognize NACHI, but the EPA does not recognize the IICRC.

Bottom-line, where we you want to be when it comes to court? I do not like court, but because it’s part of how I make my living, I tell my customers that if I get thrown out because of not being accepted as an “Expert Witness” there is no charge. And I do not want someone pointing the finger at me saying that I was trained by a biased organization.

Sincerely,
Dale

 

[Desk Jockey]

Dale you would no better than I, we do everything we can to avoid ending up in court, if we are in court chances are we've already lost.

Lost out on money that should have been due us in a timely manor, lost out on out time spent in court and lost out by having to pay attorney's fees.



However just for the sake of argument, wouldn't the NACHI have the same conflict of interest for you that the IICRC had, when the attorney referenced it it court?

I would think even more so than the IICRC, just for the fact the the IICRC is an independent testing body, you're not a member. With NACHI you're a member of the organization that is certifying you.

 

[The Great Oz]

Experience and good judgment are tough to teach.

As far as the 72 hour rule goes, I can't help. It may well be good science, but remember the 13 degree rule? A misinterpretation that was taught for years before someone caught it. A few years ago heat drying structures was considered dangerous? Even in our plant the dry room is not as efficient as it should be, due to "dry room science" being borrowed from the lumber industry.

I remember ASCR (RIA) folks strongly suggesting to the IICRC that they issue "guidelines" or "best practices" instead of "standards" even if things were mostly right. There are too many variables for a completely accurate standard without making it inconceivably complex and therefore unusable, or making it so vague that everything is open to interpretation. (Except for the lawyers that will use it to prove you didn't do things by the book.)

Maybe why the EPA issued guidelines.


As an extreme example, rug cleaners in New Orleans were pulling Oriental rugs out of waste piles weeks after that cat3 inundation, taking them back to their shops and saving them. You might argue that the rugs were somehow pickled by heat and mud to preserve them, but by the book they would have gone to the dump instead of back into people's homes.

 

[Craig Lindquist]

If my puppies will drink it then it's safe.

 

[Dale]

Hi Richard:

Per the above, I'm not sure I understand your question, these were not "conflict of interests"? But maybe I did'nt make myself understandable. Please private email if it needs answering. Also the same applies if I have confused anybody else.

Regardess, we have gotten way off Lisa's original question. From what I've read, Larry Cobb needs to confirm his above quote. And Scott Warrington did appear to answer her question on Cleanfax.

Thx,
Dale

 

[LisaWagnerCRS]

Hi Lisa:

Lisa's question is good. And I appreciate her recent mind opening comments about the IICRC. But I do think that she will find the same thing that I did; that when I sued the IICRC, everybody was encouraging me, but nobody helped back me. So my little bit of money soon ran out.

The IICRC does have a place, and it’s with cleaning only. So what I don't understand is, why anybody cares what the IICRC writes in water damage or mold standards? True someone has to, but when it comes to courts, most Judges don’t know who the IICRC is, and they all know the EPA. So why not just keep with standards written by the EPA? The EPA’s standards are simply written so as to take the greed out of mold & water damage. When I worked volunteer work @ Katrina damaged area, no one mentioned the IICRC standards. But we did hear from the EPA who was very active there with volunteers, and they didn’t make issues over anything but bottom-line results.

IMO the IICRC standards were written to greedily “protect” the Remediator by making him think he has a law that no one can abide by except one who is certified by the IICRC. But they are only protected in their minds. On the other-hand when the EPA writes standards on such sensitive issues as MOLD CLEANUP IN SCHOOLS, they are not afraid that the IICRC standard will override theirs in court. Even though the IICRC standard is much more detailed, and not meant to be understood, even by Judges. The EPA takes a simplistic approach, because they realize that mold is trying to be turned to gold.

In addition to flooring inspections, I do mold/water damage inspections ( see http://www.flooringinspector.com under resume/cv). When people call me abut the above I send them to the EPA website. I tell them to take the simple EPA course; and that they can do the cleanup themselves, or hire someone else and supervise that it is done by EPA standards. Then after it is complete, if they want it inspected, I will come in, and check the water damage results and mold spore count, and write a certified clearance report. IMO, if the building passes, no matter how they got to that point should not matter to me. I can now write a report, showing the evidence that there are no problems, and I don’t worry about it being done by IICRC standards.

No I’ve never been to court on one of these, and I don’t know of anyone else who has. But if I go, I’m not afraid of anyone quoting the IICRC standards. And I’m not going to spend a lot of time now worrying about why they put ANYTHING specific into standards. I also understand that the IAQA (a respected organization) is working on writing water damage, and mold cleanup remediaton standards. I know that they train Remediators & Inspectors both so I look forward to reading them.

What I have seen in court (with flooring inspections) is this, Lawyers accusing me of being trained by biased organizations. And I would expect the same thing in a water damage or mold remediation situation if I used IICRC standards. Of course the Lawyer is only trying a means to make me look foolish, and tossed out as an “Expert Witness” (LOL, I can do that myself). In order to overcome such a situation I just show the facts and try to prove them. As such when I have a much more powerful organization than the IICRC to quote, I’m going to quote the EPA.

Sincerely,
Dale

Dale, thanks for posting... all good things to think about.

Lisa

 

[harryhides]

 

[rick imby]

I have proof that it should be category three.

Put your clothes in your washer.

Wash clothes with the lid up so it does not spin.

Leave for 72 hours.

It will be category 3 just from the dirt etc and water and time.

I am not an expert but I have accidentally ruined a washing machine full of clothes this way.

I tried Bleaching the wash, Then I added a half a bottle of vinegar.

The stuff was still too stinky.

Rick

 

[Lee Stockwell]

I have proof that it should be category three.

Put your clothes in your washer.

Wash clothes with the lid up so it does not spin.

Leave for 72 hours.

It will be category 3 just from the dirt etc and water and time.

I am not an expert but I have accidentally ruined a washing machine full of clothes this way.

I tried Bleaching the wash, Then I added a half a bottle of vinegar.

The stuff was still too stinky.

Rick

Do that with cold water in a cold basement.

Do that with relatively clean clothes or with water very slowly trickling over them.

= different results.