Carpet Cleaning Fool
Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,496
- Name
- George Valliant
This is very bad for restoration professionals. I agree with Jeremy and will be submitting a comment to the IICRC. We request that you do the same. Below is the email from Jeremy Reets requesting everyone submit a comment to the IICRC by the August 31 deadline.
Thank you very much, George Valliant
-----------------
Jeremy Reets
August 26, 2014
S500 Air Mover Issues Persist
Review Period Ends Sunday. What can you do? And where is the rest of the S500 Draft? You will want to know. Read on.
It is good to see the unified response to the air mover issue. The industry as a whole has spoken and said that this substantial change should never have been suggested and certainly not without the support of testing to prove the formula changes. We hope that the Consensus Body will listen to the entire rest of the industry that actually does water restoration and return the 2006 air mover language. We don't rely on hope though. We take action.
We must act immediately to stop this Draft from becoming a Standard. Some of the language is so far off of reality that the Standard is unusable. Additionally it recommends a reduction of air mover usage so substantial that it renders the professional powerless to dry structures appropriately. Please read each section carefully so that you understand the issues clearly.
I cannot believe we are doing this a 3rd time, but here we are. Your efforts are absolutely necessary. We need thousands of comments to the Consensus Body. Everyone on your staff should comment. If you don't act now it'll be hard to complain later. We will be successful if we stay united in our efforts.
Here are the reasons why this change is at least unnecessary and detrimental, but likely catastrophic.
* No testing has been done to establish a new rate of air mover placement. - This is the biggest issue. The formulas proposed are opinion, guesswork. This is why when pressed after the first draft the formula changed from one air mover every 65-85 SF to one air mover every 50-70 SF in the second. There is nothing supporting the formula so it is merely opinion. This is dangerous ground that severely undermines the authority of the S500. On the other hand the current formula has been tested millions of times in the field by competent, certified restorers. Additionally insurers have evaluated its effectiveness from their position. We agree on the standard of care that the property owner should receive. Don't change it.
* The language leads to misinterpretation. - Let me give an example to illustrate: A restorer dries a property with 724 SF of affected floor space that has a concrete floor with installed carpet and cushion over it, wet drywall 6" high and obviously wet sill plates. The restorer installs drying equipment including one air mover per 50 SF because he has wet carpet and cushion. He leaves them there for 4 days at which point he reaches his drying goals. A third party reviews the project against the S500 because they accept the standard and want all work performed according to this standard. This third party states that they only owe for one air mover every 70 SF on day one, but that this should be reduced to one air mover per 150 SF day 2 through day 4. They contend that this is stated in the standard and therefore the contractor has over billed the project. This particular example reduces air mover usage by about 60%. Is the third party correct? Well they would not be correct that the contractor over billed, but they would be correct in stating that their specification fits the standard. How? Read ahead.
* When primarily drying low evaporation materials or assemblies, after the initial surface drying, air flow should be reduced to one air mover for every 100 to 150 square feet of all wet surfaces. When low evaporation materials enter the falling rate drying stage, airflow should be reduced - Read this language carefully. Once carpet and cushion are dry, you only have low evaporation materials or assemblies. How long does it take to dry carpet and cushion? 24 hours? At that point you are primarily drying low evaporation materials or assemblies. So according to the Draft, reduce to 1 air mover per 100-150 SF. Ludicrous! Yet this is what the S500 Draft states. It is what you are going to be held to if we don't fight this. Then it goes on to specify that when low evaporation materials enter the falling rate drying stage (which is undefined in the standard) air flow should be reduced. The word 'should' in the S500 indicates that this must be done as the standard of care. This makes the standard completely unusable.
Where is the rest of the S500? Don't read this before bed or you'll be too upset to sleep.
When I initially saw the condensed format of the "Substantive Changes" document, it seemed like a good idea. It stated, "Note: This document includes only the substantive changes made since the last public review: Additions are underlined, and deletions are shown in strikethrough. Editorial and clarification changes are not included here. Changes made to the Standard are also made in the corresponding section of the S500 Reference Guide." Good, less to review. Then I went back and looked at the comments from the S500 CB to my last round of comments. Now I want to know where the rest of the S500 is.
There is a lot of language that has been changed, or not changed for unknown reasons, that we are not able to see. Therefore we are not doing a public review of the document. Note a couple of examples from CB comments back to me:
* Thank you for your comment. The language in this section has been modified to clarify the materials in which reduced airflow can be beneficial during the falling drying rate stage. Language now reads: "Reduced airflow during the falling rate of drying, the period of lowest moisture availability and evaporation, can be beneficial when drying"low evaporation materials" (e.g., concrete, stone, timbers). A high rate of airflow can retard the drying process by decreasing the wetted pore surfaces or shrinking the pore in the overly dry surface layer thus reducing moisture movement within the material." - This is still in the standard somewhere. It is not open to review or comment. What?! This is critical. How are we supposed to defend ourselves with this nonsense in the standard? When are we in the falling rate of drying? A high rate of air flow will retard the drying process? Yes I've noted that many of my jobs dry first at the farthest point from the air mover and not right in front of the air mover. (Please note the sarcasm.) This is wrong. And you are not able to review it. Nonsense.
* Thank you for your comment. The Committee feels that this section is a good technical description of airflow. High velocity of airflow is not needed during all stages of drying materials. Guidelines on use of airflow is found within Chapter 13. - Why and where does the Draft refer to reduction of velocity of air flow? This is wrong. Additionally why are we not allowed to comment to it?
I can not support a Draft I cannot see. This is not public review.
* Thank you for your comment. The Committee has removed all language that provides stage of drying as standard of care. - Um...The last two comments include 'stages of drying' as your answer. In the Standard of Care what I can see of section 13.5.7.1 "Controlling Airflow" refers to stages of drying 3 times. The next section 13.5.7.2 leads with "When low evaporation Class 4 materials enter the falling rate drying stage, airflow should be reduced". What part of the Standard of Care no longer has 'stage of drying' as the standard of care? The parts about air movers are full of it. Oh, by the way the next comment to me says, "Thank you for your comment. The language has been clarified for this bullet point, and now reads: "Reduce airflow during later phase - Reduced airflow during the falling rate of drying, the period of lowest moisture availability and evaporation, can be beneficial when drying low evaporation materials (e.g., concrete, stone, timbers). A high rate of airflow can retard the drying process by decreasing the wetted pore surfaces or shrinking the pore in the overly dry surface layer thus reducing moisture movement within the material." Didn't it just say phase which is a synonym of stage? What are we doing? There is so much double speak in this standard that any desired result could be extracted from this standard. Why? This is a mess. As a restorer my family's livelihood is at stake with this completely senseless, directionless banter.
What else are we missing? This 3rd Round of public review is a mockery of the ANSI process. It is a mockery of the restoration community.
Why? Please tell me why.
I apologize that in my last email it appeared that I questioned the motives of the Consensus Body. I meant to communicate the question on everyone's mind, 'Why?' We don't know the answer to that question. Again, I'm sorry for communicating negatively.
Action Plan for everyone in your organization - Due by August 31 (but do it today so you don't forget)
1. Download and read the Substantive Change document and comment form from IICRC. Here is the link: http://www.iicrc.org/standards/iicrc-s500/
2. If you made comments last time, review those and see if they are in the Substantive Change document. In the likely event that the section you commented on is not there, demand that you have a chance to review the entire document so that you can see the changes made.
3. Review the modest portion of the S500 that we have and using the comment form request removal of all language that you see that refers to reduction of air movers as there is nothing to support this language.
4. Using the comment form and your personal reasoning, request that the original formula for air mover placement be returned. The current S500 formula language of one air mover per 10-16 linear feet of affected wall surface is proven, simple and accurate. - The proposed language as noted above is untested, complicated and unusable as written. Why are we doing this?
5. Be professional but firm in your comments. This document does not communicate a usable standard of care for air mover placement.
Click here for PDF version to print out.
Forward this email
Thank you very much, George Valliant
-----------------
Jeremy Reets
August 26, 2014
S500 Air Mover Issues Persist
Review Period Ends Sunday. What can you do? And where is the rest of the S500 Draft? You will want to know. Read on.
It is good to see the unified response to the air mover issue. The industry as a whole has spoken and said that this substantial change should never have been suggested and certainly not without the support of testing to prove the formula changes. We hope that the Consensus Body will listen to the entire rest of the industry that actually does water restoration and return the 2006 air mover language. We don't rely on hope though. We take action.
We must act immediately to stop this Draft from becoming a Standard. Some of the language is so far off of reality that the Standard is unusable. Additionally it recommends a reduction of air mover usage so substantial that it renders the professional powerless to dry structures appropriately. Please read each section carefully so that you understand the issues clearly.
I cannot believe we are doing this a 3rd time, but here we are. Your efforts are absolutely necessary. We need thousands of comments to the Consensus Body. Everyone on your staff should comment. If you don't act now it'll be hard to complain later. We will be successful if we stay united in our efforts.
Here are the reasons why this change is at least unnecessary and detrimental, but likely catastrophic.
* No testing has been done to establish a new rate of air mover placement. - This is the biggest issue. The formulas proposed are opinion, guesswork. This is why when pressed after the first draft the formula changed from one air mover every 65-85 SF to one air mover every 50-70 SF in the second. There is nothing supporting the formula so it is merely opinion. This is dangerous ground that severely undermines the authority of the S500. On the other hand the current formula has been tested millions of times in the field by competent, certified restorers. Additionally insurers have evaluated its effectiveness from their position. We agree on the standard of care that the property owner should receive. Don't change it.
* The language leads to misinterpretation. - Let me give an example to illustrate: A restorer dries a property with 724 SF of affected floor space that has a concrete floor with installed carpet and cushion over it, wet drywall 6" high and obviously wet sill plates. The restorer installs drying equipment including one air mover per 50 SF because he has wet carpet and cushion. He leaves them there for 4 days at which point he reaches his drying goals. A third party reviews the project against the S500 because they accept the standard and want all work performed according to this standard. This third party states that they only owe for one air mover every 70 SF on day one, but that this should be reduced to one air mover per 150 SF day 2 through day 4. They contend that this is stated in the standard and therefore the contractor has over billed the project. This particular example reduces air mover usage by about 60%. Is the third party correct? Well they would not be correct that the contractor over billed, but they would be correct in stating that their specification fits the standard. How? Read ahead.
* When primarily drying low evaporation materials or assemblies, after the initial surface drying, air flow should be reduced to one air mover for every 100 to 150 square feet of all wet surfaces. When low evaporation materials enter the falling rate drying stage, airflow should be reduced - Read this language carefully. Once carpet and cushion are dry, you only have low evaporation materials or assemblies. How long does it take to dry carpet and cushion? 24 hours? At that point you are primarily drying low evaporation materials or assemblies. So according to the Draft, reduce to 1 air mover per 100-150 SF. Ludicrous! Yet this is what the S500 Draft states. It is what you are going to be held to if we don't fight this. Then it goes on to specify that when low evaporation materials enter the falling rate drying stage (which is undefined in the standard) air flow should be reduced. The word 'should' in the S500 indicates that this must be done as the standard of care. This makes the standard completely unusable.
Where is the rest of the S500? Don't read this before bed or you'll be too upset to sleep.
When I initially saw the condensed format of the "Substantive Changes" document, it seemed like a good idea. It stated, "Note: This document includes only the substantive changes made since the last public review: Additions are underlined, and deletions are shown in strikethrough. Editorial and clarification changes are not included here. Changes made to the Standard are also made in the corresponding section of the S500 Reference Guide." Good, less to review. Then I went back and looked at the comments from the S500 CB to my last round of comments. Now I want to know where the rest of the S500 is.
There is a lot of language that has been changed, or not changed for unknown reasons, that we are not able to see. Therefore we are not doing a public review of the document. Note a couple of examples from CB comments back to me:
* Thank you for your comment. The language in this section has been modified to clarify the materials in which reduced airflow can be beneficial during the falling drying rate stage. Language now reads: "Reduced airflow during the falling rate of drying, the period of lowest moisture availability and evaporation, can be beneficial when drying"low evaporation materials" (e.g., concrete, stone, timbers). A high rate of airflow can retard the drying process by decreasing the wetted pore surfaces or shrinking the pore in the overly dry surface layer thus reducing moisture movement within the material." - This is still in the standard somewhere. It is not open to review or comment. What?! This is critical. How are we supposed to defend ourselves with this nonsense in the standard? When are we in the falling rate of drying? A high rate of air flow will retard the drying process? Yes I've noted that many of my jobs dry first at the farthest point from the air mover and not right in front of the air mover. (Please note the sarcasm.) This is wrong. And you are not able to review it. Nonsense.
* Thank you for your comment. The Committee feels that this section is a good technical description of airflow. High velocity of airflow is not needed during all stages of drying materials. Guidelines on use of airflow is found within Chapter 13. - Why and where does the Draft refer to reduction of velocity of air flow? This is wrong. Additionally why are we not allowed to comment to it?
I can not support a Draft I cannot see. This is not public review.
* Thank you for your comment. The Committee has removed all language that provides stage of drying as standard of care. - Um...The last two comments include 'stages of drying' as your answer. In the Standard of Care what I can see of section 13.5.7.1 "Controlling Airflow" refers to stages of drying 3 times. The next section 13.5.7.2 leads with "When low evaporation Class 4 materials enter the falling rate drying stage, airflow should be reduced". What part of the Standard of Care no longer has 'stage of drying' as the standard of care? The parts about air movers are full of it. Oh, by the way the next comment to me says, "Thank you for your comment. The language has been clarified for this bullet point, and now reads: "Reduce airflow during later phase - Reduced airflow during the falling rate of drying, the period of lowest moisture availability and evaporation, can be beneficial when drying low evaporation materials (e.g., concrete, stone, timbers). A high rate of airflow can retard the drying process by decreasing the wetted pore surfaces or shrinking the pore in the overly dry surface layer thus reducing moisture movement within the material." Didn't it just say phase which is a synonym of stage? What are we doing? There is so much double speak in this standard that any desired result could be extracted from this standard. Why? This is a mess. As a restorer my family's livelihood is at stake with this completely senseless, directionless banter.
What else are we missing? This 3rd Round of public review is a mockery of the ANSI process. It is a mockery of the restoration community.
Why? Please tell me why.
I apologize that in my last email it appeared that I questioned the motives of the Consensus Body. I meant to communicate the question on everyone's mind, 'Why?' We don't know the answer to that question. Again, I'm sorry for communicating negatively.
Action Plan for everyone in your organization - Due by August 31 (but do it today so you don't forget)
1. Download and read the Substantive Change document and comment form from IICRC. Here is the link: http://www.iicrc.org/standards/iicrc-s500/
2. If you made comments last time, review those and see if they are in the Substantive Change document. In the likely event that the section you commented on is not there, demand that you have a chance to review the entire document so that you can see the changes made.
3. Review the modest portion of the S500 that we have and using the comment form request removal of all language that you see that refers to reduction of air movers as there is nothing to support this language.
4. Using the comment form and your personal reasoning, request that the original formula for air mover placement be returned. The current S500 formula language of one air mover per 10-16 linear feet of affected wall surface is proven, simple and accurate. - The proposed language as noted above is untested, complicated and unusable as written. Why are we doing this?
5. Be professional but firm in your comments. This document does not communicate a usable standard of care for air mover placement.
Click here for PDF version to print out.
Forward this email
