RE: Re: IEPs

[Guest guest]

Steve,

You and I are in the same

boat on this.

My first involvement with

testing for mold in hospitals goes back to about 1976.

For industry purposes, depending

on my customer, I refer to myself as an IEP and IEH (indoor environmental hygienist),

ICP (infection control practitioner), since my other hat as an industrial

hygienist generally does not apply in mold cases.

I don’t believe I am being directed by IICRC as far as my title, other than the

IEP common use term remediation contractors and adjusters can understand.

Bottom line, IICRC is not

telling me how to do my job, nor are they defining my title. Only I generate

that term. I define my title and expertise in the body of my opening letter to

my customer so there is no misunderstanding about expert credentials.

Moffett

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of AirwaysEnv@...

Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006

6:48 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re: IEPs

In a message

dated 12/11/2006 8:12:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, pmoffettemeiaq

writes:

For the purpose of

educating the remediation contractor, we agreed on the definition of what an

IEP entails, but the S520 Mold Standard’s committee never intended

telling IEPs how to do their work.

,

I understand the intent and agree. I have no (major) problem with the

document for use by contractors. In fact, I like it very much for

contractors.

I'm saying that by S520 defining an IEP as someone who can recognize Condition

1, and then defining Condition 1, the document is, de facto, telling an IEP how

to do his/her job. I was doing this kind of work before there ever was an

" IEP " or a " Condition 1 " . Now I am one and have to

use the term? It is telling me how to

do my job. It used to be called " professional

judgment " . At least we all knew what that meant. We don't know

what Condition 1 means, so we'll all just fake it? It's still

professional judgment. Why use a term that only confuses everyone and

makes people like me feel like I have to declare a situation " Condition

1 " and pretend that the term means something? I won't use the term

and won't reference the document and will consider S520 to be just good advice

for remediators.

My issue isn't with the remediation guidelines, it's simply about the

definition of Condition 1 being BOGUS (it defines a concept, not a condition)

and that I'm supposed to use the term. If I don't know what it means, I

won't. It was a term of convenience when preparing the document. It

isn't convenient for me in my practice because it isn't defensible.

Steve Temes