Mold assessor license requirements in Texas

What Texas requires in a mold remediation protocol

A licensed mold assessment consultant prepares the remediation protocol, and 16 TAC §78.100(e) names six things it must specify. These are not style guidance — they are the contents the rule requires, and an omission is an omission whether or not the work was done properly.

The six: the rooms or areas where the work will be performed; the quantities of material to be removed; the methods to be used for each type of remediation; the personal protective equipment to be supplied; the proposed containment; and the clearance criteria for each area.

The quantities requirement is the one most often missed. A protocol that describes the work but never states how much material is coming out does not satisfy §78.100(e)(2), and it is also the number the remediation contractor bids against.

Cited: 16 TAC §78.100(e)(1) · 16 TAC §78.100(e)(2) · 16 TAC §78.100(e)(3) · 16 TAC §78.100(e)(4) · 16 TAC §78.100(e)(5) · 16 TAC §78.100(e)(6)

What Texas requires in a post-remediation clearance report

Texas calls clearance a post-remediation assessment, and 16 TAC §78.140(d) lists what the report must contain: relevant worksite observations; the type and location of all measurements made and samples collected; all data obtained at the worksite, including temperature, humidity and material moisture readings; the results of analytical evaluation of those samples; copies of all photographs taken by the consultant; and a clear statement that the project has passed clearance.

Two of those are easy to under-deliver. "All data obtained at the worksite" means every reading, not the interesting ones — including a location checked with a pinless meter that produced no number, which is still data obtained at the worksite. And "copies of all photographs" means all of them, not a curated selection; photographs that do not belong in the narrative still belong in the report.

Where a project does NOT pass, §78.140(e) requires the conclusions the consultant has drawn. The pass statement in (d)(6) is not owed on that path — a failed clearance owes conclusions, not a statement it passed.

Cited: 16 TAC §78.140(d)(1) · 16 TAC §78.140(d)(2) · 16 TAC §78.140(d)(3) · 16 TAC §78.140(d)(4) · 16 TAC §78.140(d)(5) · 16 TAC §78.140(d)(6) · 16 TAC §78.140(e)

The signature block Texas requires on every report

16 TAC §78.52(f)(6) requires the consultant to sign and date each report and to include the license number AND its expiration date. The expiration date is the part that gets left off, and it is the part that makes the signature block checkable by anyone reading the document later.

This applies to each report the consultant issues, not only to the clearance document — the assessment report and the remediation protocol carry it too.

Cited: 16 TAC §78.52(f)(6)

Who has to be independent of whom

Texas separates the assessment side from the remediation side. The consultant who writes the protocol and performs clearance is licensed separately from the contractor who performs the work, and the point of the separation is that nobody clears their own remediation.

This is worth stating plainly to clients, who often assume one company can do everything. In Texas the party who removed the material is not the party who signs off that removal succeeded.

What MoldMind does about it

MoldMind writes every element these rules name, in the protocol and in the clearance report, and flags the ones it cannot find in a draft before you finalize it.

Nothing here certifies your work, and no software can. Compliance is a legal conclusion; the checklist catches omissions, and the judgment and the signature stay yours.