Mold infestations can have significant financial exposure for property owners, insurers, responsible parties, and third parties in buildings where mold damages have been identified and require remediation.

A typical pollution liability policy may contain coverage for mold cleanup under a “microbial endorsement” and treat mold as a “pollutant” within the policy. However, coverage can be complex and varies significantly from policy to policy. Given the potentially high costs of mold remediation and the varying scope of insurance coverage, cost management during the investigation, cleanup and restoration phases is critical for all parties involved to mitigate the loss in the most cost-effective option possible.

This edition of HETI Horizons explores cost management and control strategies in mold response/mitigation within the framework of environmental/pollution liability policies. It highlights the factors driving mold claims, risk management, best practices, and recommendations for ensuring cost-effective mitigation strategies.

Understanding Mold as a Pollution Condition

Mold is a type of fungus that grows and can amplify naturally in the exterior or interior environment – in the presence of favorable conditions including a sufficient food source (organic material), nutrients, temperature, and water source. Mold growth may damage interior building materials and become unwanted, or a “pollution condition” – when it spreads beyond normal levels because of moisture intrusion, poor ventilation, or building defects. Within insurance, particularly pollution legal liability (PLL) or contractor’s pollution liability (CPL) policies, mold is typically considered a biological contaminant or microbial matter.

Common Scenarios in Mold Claims

Mold-related losses generally rise out of three different scenarios:

• Sudden and accidental water sources in a short period of time – such as from storms, flooding, or water/plumbing leaks
• Chronic water conditions over a longer period of time – such as from chronic water leaks, HVAC issues, or roof leaks over time
• Construction defect issues arising from an insured’s workmanship or product – such as in new or renovation construction, product defects, improper installation, etc.

Cost Drivers in Mold Mitigation

Mold mitigation costs vary widely depending on:

• Extent of contamination: Minor surface mold vs. systemic contamination.
• Access issues: Mold behind walls, under flooring, or in HVAC systems increases labor and time.
• Delays in notification and response: The longer mold is allowed to spread, the more extensive (and expensive) the remediation may become. Mold amplification can occur within 24-72 hours following a water event. So it becomes time critical to mitigate the water loss and stop the mold growth to alleviate spreading the damages.
• Lack of documentation: Insufficient inspection or lack of early moisture detection complicates claims and increases potential coverage disputes. Failure to identify, separate and document water damage from mold damage during the initial assessment and remediation process can result in challenges determining reasonable and necessary costs at the completion of remediation activities.
• Regulatory compliance: State or local laws may mandate specific licensed personnel or protocols for mold remediation.

Best Practices in Mold Cost Control

Early Detection and Immediate Response: Timely identification of moisture intrusion and mold conditions dramatically reduces remediation costs. Use of regularly scheduled facility inspections, moisture meters, and infrared imaging can detect early-stage issues. It is recommended that property owners and facility managers:

• Conduct routine inspections of high-risk areas (basements, crawl spaces, windows, roofs, HVAC systems).
• Install moisture alarms and dehumidifiers.
• Address leaks or water intrusion immediately.
• Quickly identifying and fixing the source of moisture can prevent mold from amplifying and reduce the severity of cleanup.

Use of Pre-Approved Contractors: Using qualified environmental contractors and Certified Industrial Hygienists (CIHs) – with pre-negotiated rates and proven remediation protocols – can limit cost inflation, reduce disputes, and facilitate compliance with industry guidelines and policy conditions.

Scope-of-Work Verification: Before starting remediation, a clear scope of work should be defined based on a third-party assessment conducted by a CIH. The scope should be commensurate with the extent of contamination and industry-accepted guidelines. The scope should include:

• Defined areas for containment
• Specific quantities of contaminated materials to be removed or cleaned
• Types of chemicals and equipment to be used
• Estimated labor hours, cost, and schedule
• Specific clearance protocols/criteria and achievable endpoints, that are clearly understood among all parties

Having a clearly defined and documented scope reduces the risk of “scope creep” and unexpected cost overruns.

Approved Remediation Proposals: Before starting remediation, proposals based on the approved scope of remediation work should be reviewed. The proposals should be commensurate with the extent of contamination and industry-accepted guidelines. Having clearly defined proposals should reduce the risk of “scope creep” and unexpected cost overruns. In many cases, multiple/competitive bids should be secured from several experienced, regional vendors familiar with protocols for cleaning up mold damages.

Third-Party Oversight: Using a qualified CIH pn the project site during the remediation ensures the work is necessary and complete. The CIH can act as an objective party, offering defensible data and preventing unnecessary remediation activities disputes over the extent of contamination or the effectiveness of the cleanup.

Documentation and Chain of Custody: Detailed records of site conditions, testing results, photographs, remediation activities, and disposal documentation are critical for both cost recovery and defending against third party claims. Detailed documentation of the following should be maintained:

• Inspection results and testing data
• Daily labor logs and time tracking
• Materials and equipment used
• Waste disposal records
• Invoices with line-item breakdowns

This information supports cost recovery and can defend against inflated claims or third-party litigation.

Reasonableness and Necessity Reviews: Insurance carriers often conduct cost reviews to assess whether charges are reasonable, and remediation is necessary. Insureds can prepare for this by ensuring line-item breakdowns and daily job logs including subcontractor personnel logs, equipment usage logs, and personal protective equipment logs are maintained. Using an experienced CIH to review these project documents can assist with separating pollution from non-pollution related costs.

HETI: Partnering for a Healthier, Safer Workplace

Mold response and mitigation can be expensive, but costs can be managed properly with the right strategies for each project. From early detection and accurate scoping to thorough documentation and the use of qualified professionals, cost control in mold remediation requires proactive planning and disciplined execution.

HETI’s staff of experienced Certified Industrial Hygienists can assist clients with proper assessment, project oversight, and invoice review – critical for managing and controlling mold remediation costs effectively.

To find out more about this and other HETI industrial hygiene services, please contact us.

Michael Henderson, PhD, CIH Director, Industrial Hygiene

Phone: 978.263.4044 development@hetiservices.com

In recent years, the use of electronic cigarettes, commonly referred to as e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has become increasingly widespread across both public and professional settings. Initially marketed as a less harmful alternative to combustible tobacco products, vaping quickly gained popularity among adults and adolescents alike. However, growing scientific evidence and regulatory scrutiny have revealed a far more complex picture. Vaping poses not only health risks for users and bystanders but also introduces new challenges for workplace safety management and environmental compliance.

At HETI, we believe that a clear understanding of these emerging risks is essential for organizations striving to maintain safe indoor environments, minimize operational liabilities, and demonstrate a strong commitment to environmental responsibility. This edition of HETI Horizons takes a closer look at the multifaceted impact of vaping in the workplace and what employers need to know to stay ahead of evolving standards.

A Health Hazard in Disguise

Despite the public perception of vaping as a tool for harm reduction compared to typical cigarettes, studies have repeatedly shown that e-cigarette aerosols are far from harmless. One common myth is that vaping emits only “water vapor.” In truth, research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirms that the aerosol contains a mix of nicotine, ultrafine particles, heavy metals such as lead and cadmium, and volatile organic compounds including formaldehyde and acrolein.

These airborne contaminants are not limited to the person vaping. The aerosol can linger in indoor environments and expose nearby employees, especially in confined or poorly ventilated areas. In 2016, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a pivotal report affirming that e-cigarette aerosol “is not harmless water vapor,” and warning that secondhand exposure could adversely affect people with respiratory or cardiovascular conditions and pose risks to pregnant individuals.

Since that time, further studies have linked prolonged exposure to vape aerosols with airway inflammation, diminished lung capacity, and increased cardiovascular stress – even among individuals who have never used vaping products. In response, more than a dozen states, including California, Colorado, New York, and Washington, have amended their Clean Indoor Air Acts to prohibit vaping in workplaces, healthcare facilities, schools, and other public buildings.

Workplace Policy Gaps and Enforcement Challenges

For many employers, vaping presents a unique policy enforcement challenge. While most organizations already prohibit smoking in the workplace, their policies may not specifically address e-cigarettes. This ambiguity often results in inconsistent application, misunderstandings among employees, and unnecessary workplace tension. Some employees may believe that vaping is permitted indoors due to the absence of smoke, while others express concern over air quality or health effects.

The lack of clearly defined expectations around vaping can also create legal and regulatory vulnerabilities. Complaints may arise from employees with health sensitivities, particularly if exposure occurs in areas where ventilation is inadequate. Without explicit language in workplace policies, employers may struggle to enforce vaping restrictions or apply disciplinary procedures consistently.

To address this issue, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has begun referencing vaping during health and safety consultations. Although no federal rule currently bans vaping in private workplaces, OSHA encourages employers to treat e-cigarette use with the same level of caution as smoking when designing occupational health programs. Labor unions in education, aviation, and healthcare sectors are increasingly negotiating to include vaping restrictions alongside traditional tobacco prohibitions in workplace agreements.

Safety Risks Beyond the Aerosol

In addition to the health effects of aerosol exposure, e-cigarettes introduce physical safety hazards that are often overlooked. The lithium-ion batteries used in these devices can malfunction – especially when damaged, improperly charged, or exposed to heat. Over the past five years, the U.S. Fire Administration has recorded more than 300 incidents of e-cigarette battery failures, some of which caused injuries, workplace evacuations, or equipment damage. [See the April 2025 HETI Horizons for a discussion of lithium-ion battery hazards.]

Many of these events occurred when employees left devices charging unattended at desks, in lockers, or near flammable materials. As a preventive measure, several facilities have started to restrict the use and charging of unapproved personal electronic devices on site.

Another concern is the chemical exposure risk from nicotine itself. Spills or leaks from damaged vape cartridges can lead to dermal absorption or accidental ingestion. In high concentrations, nicotine is a hazardous substance and can cause symptoms such as nausea, dizziness, elevated heart rate, and in rare cases, poisoning. In safety-sensitive workplaces, even mild symptoms of exposure can present risks for employees operating vehicles, machinery, or precision tools.

Environmental Impact of Vape Waste

The rapid proliferation of disposable e-cigarettes, often brightly packaged and flavored to appeal to younger users, has contributed to an underreported but growing environmental issue. These products typically combine plastic casings, metal coils, and embedded lithium-ion batteries – making them difficult to recycle and environmentally hazardous if discarded improperly.

Traces of nicotine and other chemicals in used vape cartridges classify them, in many jurisdictions, as hazardous waste. Improper disposal into regular trash streams can result in soil or water contamination, posing risks to sanitation workers and local ecosystems.

In 2025, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control issued guidance recognizing used vape pens and cartridges as “universal waste” – a regulatory term under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for commonly generated hazardous items that require specific handling. Several city sanitation departments across the country have since noted a spike in vape-related litter near schools, parks, storm drains, and commercial buildings.

Organizations that allow vaping on their premises without proper waste disposal measures may inadvertently contribute to this growing problem, or worse, face fines for violating environmental regulations.

Action Steps for Responsible Employers

Given the expanding awareness of vaping-related hazards, employers should act now to assess and update their workplace practices. The first step is to review existing tobacco and smoke-free policies and ensure they clearly prohibit or regulate vaping and e-cigarette use. Policy language should explicitly define the devices and apply restrictions consistently across all indoor areas.

Employers should also update hazard communication programs and employee health trainings to include information on the risks associated with e-cigarette aerosol and proper disposal of vaping devices. Many employees may not be aware that vaping can pose risks to others or that used vape pens should not be discarded in regular trash bins.

Facility managers should evaluate whether their fire prevention protocols address the charging and storage of personal electronic devices and whether designated outdoor vaping areas (if permitted) are clearly marked and monitored. Containers for vape waste should be clearly labeled and handled in accordance with local waste regulations.

Finally, employers must stay informed about evolving laws. In July 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized updates to its Premarket Tobacco Product Applications rule, requiring manufacturers to disclose full ingredient lists and conduct emissions testing for e-cigarette products. These new standards are expected to influence future occupational exposure guidelines and could impact regulatory reviews – including OSHA inspections and workers’ compensation claims.

HETI: Partnering for a Healthier, Safer Workplace

At HETI, we are committed to helping our clients navigate the evolving challenges of workplace health, safety, and environmental stewardship. Our services include air quality assessments, workplace policy audits, employee training programs, and custom waste management strategies tailored to a company’s operational needs.

As vaping becomes increasingly prevalent, and increasingly regulated, the approach to managing it reflects more than just compliance. It exhibits a commitment to protecting employees, maintaining a safe and healthy environment, and upholding public trust. Proactively addressing this issue today helps prevent incidents, reduce legal risk, and foster a culture of accountability and care.

References- U.S. Surgeon General. (2016). E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Health Effects of E-cigarette Use. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/ basic_information/e-cigarettes U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2024). Managing Vape Waste as Universal Waste. Retrieved from https:// www.epa.gov/hwgenerators/universal-waste U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2025). Premarket Tobacco Product Applications Final Rule. Retrieved from https:// www.fda.gov Truth Initiative. (2025). Secondhand Aerosol and Workplace Exposure Risks. Retrieved from https://truthinitiative.org/research resources/harmful-effects-tobacco/secondhand-smoke-and-secondhand-aerosol

To schedule a consultation or learn more about HETI’s services, please contact us.

Michael Henderson, PhD, CIH Director, Industrial Hygiene

Phone: 978.263.4044 development@hetiservices.com