You see, prior to the publication of the IICRC S520, there was no written standard for mold remediation. Contractors either drew from the asbestos remediation standards various procedures (e.g., containment and air filtration) or they just tore things out and rebuilt the building. So, while the first edition was not perfect, it was a good first step toward maturation. 

However, since that first step, the IICRC committee debates have led the IICRC to remove the “Safety and Health” chapter from its 2024 (Fourth Edition) standard. While some were arguing for an inclusion of risk assessment language, others thought that went too far, requiring the mold remediation standard to become “a safety and health standard”; “Something we didn’t want the standard to be,” one IICRC representative told me. So, rather than taking the next step toward maturation, the IICRC decided to remove the “Safety and Health” chapter altogether. 

Why Is This Important? 

It's as simple as this: If a remediation technician doesn’t care about his or her health and safety, how do you expect them to care for your own? Your family’s? Your customers’? Your employees’? Etc. 

By failing to incorporate safety and health into the mold remediation standard, the IICRC has become complicit (those who would willfully violate public and worker safety and health laws) by abstention; a step that could take the industry backward rather than toward maturation. 

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

So, while the IICRC continues to provide revisions to the mold remediation standard, the condition of the mold remediation industry stagnates, leaving customers frustrated and potentially harmed, and worker incident/illness rates higher than the reported numbers (as many mold remediation companies are untrained in the required reporting laws governing their industry). 

What Can Be Done?

• The current committee leader is a flooring professional with no background relative to the subject matter being generated (i.e., safety and health), yet he dictates and controls the content of the material within the proposed field guide, all the while dismissing the questions and recommendations of other committee members (some of whom brought good questions and concerns to the meeting . . . and some of whom have more direct education and experience than the committee leader in the subject matter the document is meant to discuss). 
• The contents of the field guide do not reflect current scientific principles, legal precedent, nor regulations; thus, providing for an opportunity to (1) misguide the disaster restoration industry and (2) cause harm to those who look to the IICRC for guidance in their industry. 
• The contents of the field guide (1) do not dictate well the principles of safety and health . . . nor (2) do they communicate the proposed safety and health laws discussed in the committee meeting.
• One of the major reasons the issues exist with the committee and the document is a limited, bias lens is being used to develop a document with limited focus on safety and health applications and the applications of the disaster restoration professional in the field (a direct contradiction of the title of the document). 

I must warn the IICRC that the path that it is on is a dangerous one; perhaps not for the IICRC, itself, but for those who look to the IICRC for guidance in their industry. . .. I pray that the IICRC (1) strongly considers replacing the current committee leader with a competent person, (2) time is taken to develop a quality committee of safety and health professionals, (3) time is taken to develop a document that focuses on the truth in subject matter, and (4) issues a challenge to the disaster restoration industry to mature (as OSHA and other occupational safety and health regulatory bodies and industry-based agencies and organizations have done) - if not for the integrity of the IICRC and the document, for the safety and health of those who are employed in the disaster restoration industry as well as those they serve.

So, Does This Mean The IICRC Mold Remediation Standard Lost Its Relevancy? 

To a point, yes. Federal, state, local, and provincial occupational safety and health laws dictate the responsibilities of employers and employees working in the disaster restoration industry. As the IICRC publishes revisions to its standards that do not reflect those requirements, their standards become less relevant to (1) those who understand these legal responsibilities and (2) care about their own, their employees’, and their customers’ safety and health. 

In Closing: 

The good news is that there are occupational safety and health consultants, like the Gulf Coast Center for Indoor Air Quality Services, who work with the public (and anyone else interested) to ensure proper measures are taken to protect the health and safety of mold remediators and other building occupants. If you have any questions regarding this blog or would like to discuss a need that you have with one of our industrial hygienists, contact us for a free, no-obligation review of your needs.