Surprising History of "IEP" Might Not Be What You Expected!
Do you and your family really want to hire someone with a Lesser Credential?
Why are IEPs defined in S520?
GOOD Question! Deserves a real answer. Why? because more people NEED to know the history of how we got to where we are today! It’s not always clear-cut.
First, let’s be clear - the definition of IEP was created specifically and ONLY for mold assessment and sampling. The term, and limited definition, originated in the S520 1st edition published in 2003 and was the only place formally using the definition until 2015. However, during those twelve years, the industry (i.e., restoration and remediation contractors and insurance adjusters) informally granted permission to the IEP to expand into water and fire restoration, assessing and sampling bacteria, virus, chemicals and other hazards. This substantively and irreversibly altered the indoor environmental industry. The definition of IEP for water damage assessment first appeared in the S500-2015 edition. Later, in 2024 it was added to the S700 for fire assessment.
BUT, the “real” reason that IEP’s are in the document and are defined with far less qualifications required to be a real Industrial Hygienist (or Environmental Health Science specialist, etc.) is actually simple: the original authors of S520 were contractors. While the first S520 committee (aka consensus body) did include three environmental “specialists” (Pinto, Banta, and Sierk, none of which were CIH’s or even schooled and degreed as an Industrial Hygienist) all three were ALSO INSTRUCTORS at IICRC… (To be fair, years later around 20010, Banta earned his CIH.) I, who had a Master of Science degree with specialization in industrial hygiene, was a member only on a subcommittee, which is a non-voting participant to the standard creating process. Non-voting subcommittee members were rarely permitted to actually participate as part of the actual consensus body meetings. We were permitted and encouraged to attend and observe, perhaps be available for technical information, etc. We were jokingly referred to as the “peanut gallery”.
AND, in 2008, the IICRC, via a separate organization owned and operated by one of their members known as the Indoor Environmental Institute created an industry Memo of Understanding with AIHA, IAQA and others (see excerpt below) to agree not to “monetize” (copyright, trademark, brand) the name IEP. At the time there were several events that precipitated this. Back around 2002, there was a serious business (the above IEI) plan being pushed by someone influential at IICRC to create an “Environmental Hygienist” training and certification program to compete with the real Industrial Hygienists. They approached me to be involved - obviously, my personal attachment and professional self-respect got in the way and I laughed at the idea I would stop being a real Industrial Hygienist and support a lesser, and most likely competitive title.
The second thing that happened was someone had trademarked the term IEP. Those who were original authors of 520 were both shocked and pissed! (Of course, they had their own business plans to protect as well.) How dare anyone steal their thunder! I was not part of the inner workings of IICRC back then so I don’t know the sordid details. All i know is that months later this MOU was being talked about and eventually signed by the AIHA – the heaviest of the heavy hitters. I was there in person for the general meeting that AIHA attended but was not privy to the private negotiation they held where the MOU was written.
In addition, the restoration contractor industry has an undying hatred (there is no better word!) toward the Industrial Hygiene professional. During those first couple years, 2001 - 2003 when first edition was being written (the 500 had been out for over 6 yrs by then), this dislike, resentment, and outright hostility was already embedded not just in individuals that had various run-ins with IHs, it was also the view of the leadership and instructors at IICRC. There was something very similar at IAQA and the AIAQC, now ACAC, run by Charlie Wiles. They would pay lip-service and some respected the technical knowledge of the well-educated IH, but they used it to their advantage, and co-opted the application of the knowledge without have the basis for the knowledge, and handed it to the non-educated mold-testers (for the 520), bacteria-testers (for 500 water).
This is perhaps best demonstrated apart from the IICRC by the newer organization (founded 2016) called ISEAI - they refuse to use the title, refuse to recognize the title, refuse to recognize AIHA. I know because I was there when their first advisory for “How to Find an IEP” was written by a small group of those on the environmental side (most members were/are functional med and naturopath health practitioners). It was intended to be distributed to the medical practioners who honestly had no clue where to find qualified legitimate mold assessors. The draft was circulated among a volunteer committee of about 6 or7 people, I was the only one with an actual relevant science degree. The others, including Michael Schrantz, were basically contractors and home inspectors who had moved or expanded into the IEP mold testing profession. I added a short paragraph to recognize IH’s and AIHA as the leading professional organization for information on mold, health, and assessment as well as a place to find IH’s to recommend and hire.
They, the ISEAI, FLAT OUT REJECTED this improvement.
The language they uttered was “polite” but disrespectful. I stood my ground and opposed what they had written as guidance. They would have none of it. I was slowly ostracized and later blacklisted, muted, and finally they refused to renew my membership. Interestingly, coincidentally, around that same time it turned out that Michael Schrantz, found and board member had created a company with a YouTube channel called “IEP Radio”. (We all know there is IAQRadio for over 20 years – this clearly was the “alternative” channel.) Remember also, this was a group who passionately promoted the ERMI sampling at the same time the rest of us thought it was long dead and buried because it was non-valid. They wanted to hear none of that either. Their conflict of interest was clear: any science that challenged their use of ERMI, their use of under and uneducated assessors was unwelcome.
Fun Fact: I joined on the third day they existed – I was named a “founding member”… I believe I was the 4th official environmental professional member - the others included the “de-facto” founder and longtime Board member Michael Schrantz (he denies he is a formal financial founder but he was close associates before and during the formation with the known founder, Dr. Mary Ackerley; both lived in Arizona before and after ISEAI was created and where it remains headquartered). The other original members were Mr. Schrantz’ cohorts Larry Schwartz from Chicago and Chuck Reaney from England, all of whom were Shoemaker acolyte from years prior. There may have been one or two others, but I don’t recall who they would be.
This organizational willful ignorance and avoidance of the leading profession and credentials in the mold assessment (and fire, and water) industry remains in effect at ISEAI as of this writing and is not expected to change in the near future given the continued leadership influence from Mr. Schrantz and others like him.
The most recent event affecting the recognition of Industrial Hygiene and Environmental Health Science is the rejection of the profession and its skills by the recently published IICRC Fire Restoration Standard, S700. The influencers who produced that were opposed to any industrial hygiene involvement in the activities of fire hazard assessment. At the end of 2024 (Christmas Eve was the formal announcement) they successfully got the IICRC Board of Directors to cancel the publication of the S760 Standard for Assessment and Remediation of Wildfire Hazards. It was obviously this was due to the fact the 760 formally included industrial hygiene and appropriate analytical assessment methods for wildfire contamination. The influencers behind the 700 group remain active and vehemently opposed to not just Industrial Hygiene but all non-contractor based IEP activities. They reject the notion that IEP’s are needed for any of this.
Taken together, as an ever-changing situation motivated and influenced by the self-interests of restoration contractors and insurance claims reps, the term IEP was never granted criteria other then industry-promoted courses and certifications. This all happened simultaneously with the unexpected market growth of the “mold-tester”. We’ll save that discussion for another blog!
These factors all contributed to dilute the importance and quality of highly educated professions like Industrial Hygiene and made it nearly impossible for the buying public, the homeowners and insurance reps paying for claims, to distinguish the difference.