Four Decades of the CEP Credential

Dr. Robert A. Michaels

Four Decades of the CEP Credential and Environmental Professional Certification*
   
______________________
*This article updates the following published item:
Michaels, Robert A.  Three decades of the CEP credential and environmental professional certification.  Environmental Practice, 11(1):52-6, March 2009, online http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1466046609090097, 3 January 2017.


Acknowledgments
 
The National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP) and involved NAEP members exhibited pioneering vision in establishing the CEP credential.  They have exhibited continued vision in nurturing it throughout its tenure within NAEP, and they exhibit continuing vision today in supporting the Academy of Board Certified Environmental Professionals (ABCEP) as the CEP’s new guardian.
 
Past and present members of the Certification Review Board (CRB) and of ABCEP have exhibited admirable dedication and volunteerism in serving the CRB, NAEP, ABCEP, and the environmental professions.  They did so, and they continue to do so, in a manner that has preserved and enhanced our credibility over the past four decades.
 
I especially acknowledge the inspiring contributions of my predecessors as CRB Chairperson:  Sherman J. Rosen (1979-‘86) and Charles F. (‘Chuck’) Zirzow (1986-‘93), whose funeral at Arlington National Cemetery I proudly and sadly attended in 1997.  I served for 20 years, from 1993 to 2013.  I am pleased now to acknowledge my successors as CRB Chairperson:  Dr. Kris W. Thoemke (2013-’19) and current CRB Chairperson Jennifer J. Lundberg, appointed in 2019.

Summary 
The main purpose of the CEP (Certified Environmental Professional) credential, now four decades old, is to validate senior environmental practitioners.  The CEP credential was instituted by the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP) in 1979.  That was a time of rapid growth in population, pollution, environmental specialties, and specialists. 
 
NAEP is a membership organization that was founded in 1975.  Antitrust legislation and legal opinion, however, soon required professional certifying organizations to become independent of their industry’s membership organizations.  Accordingly, NAEP in 1993 established ABCEP as an administratively independent certifying body within NAEP, and in 1999 incorporated ABCEP as an independent external not-for-profit organization conferring the CEP on meritorious senior environmental professionals.
 
ABCEP strategically sought to protect and enhance its stature and credibility among practitioners outside of NAEP, as well as among consumers of environmental services.  To do this, ABCEP applied to the highly regarded Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards (CESB) for accreditation as a professional certification organization.  Following lengthy and rigorous review, in 2004 CESB granted accreditation of ABCEP.
 
ABCEP evaluation of CEP candidates is based upon peer review.  Peer review is the principle that underlies the peerless American justice system, requiring trial of defendants before a jury of their peers.  Peer review also underpins the academic system for evaluating manuscripts submitted for publication.  These and other special features of the CEP, such as in-depth candidate evaluation via interviews and essays, have earned broad recognition of the CEP credential in government, industry, consulting, academia, and in the U. S. military.
 
Evolution of Environmental Professional Certification
Environmental professional certification programs evolved from earlier forms of validation including apprenticeships, training programs, education programs, and licensing.  In the Industrial Revolution, would-be professional artists and artisans apprenticed themselves to practitioners who had earned favorable reputation.  Generations of mentors and students proved themselves by practicing their trades and, if they did what they did well, they did well.   Our Information Age, however, has imposed new requirements on many practitioners.  Beyond training they might need certificates attesting to training, degrees attesting to learning, and licenses allowing them to practice.  The Information Age, ironically, was compensating for information inadequacy, as the number of practitioners and specialties grew, and as the distances over which practitioners were recruited expanded more rapidly than word of mouth, and so more rapidly than reputation.
 
With population growth also came space and resource limitations, increasing urgency of land use and pollution issues, and environmental practitioners to address them.  They were a new breed of professional, with expertise drawn from the pedigreed disciplines, from sciences and social sciences such as physics, biology, chemistry, political science, and communications.  Environmental professionals were hybrids, each mongrel breed combining a unique combination of characteristics drawn from the traditional pedigreed disciplines.  New rules emerged for accepting them.
 
In Darwinian (not quite Malthusian) fashion, as demand for environmental services increased, so did the number of specialists to fill them.  In response, new forms of validation arose, such as college degrees that credited ‘life experience’, though the validity of these validations was itself uncertain.  The growing public need to qualify environmental practitioners, coupled with the proliferation of specialties and specialists, together created a niche for organizations conferring environmental professional certification, including ABCEP:  the Academy of Board Certified Environmental Professionals, which offers the CEP credential, now four decades old.
 
The CEP Credential 
To validate senior environmental professionals, the CEP credential (CEP, for Certified Environmental Professional) was instituted by the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP), a membership organization that was founded in 1975.  By 1976 NAEP had 400 members, on its way to upwards of 3,000.  By 1978 NAEP also had a Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice that later gained recognition (in Federal Court) for the environmental professions generally.  That is, it applies to environmental professionals, whether or not they are CEPs or members of NAEP.
 
NAEP instituted its Environmental Certification Program, conferring the CEP credential, in 1979, and appointed Sherman J. Rosen as the first Certification Review Board (CRB) Chairperson.  Charles F. (‘Chuck’) Zirzow succeeded Sherman Rosen in 1986.  I succeeded Chuck Zirzow in 1993.
 
The Certification Program ultimately could not remain within NAEP.  A Federal antitrust case established the precedent that certifying organizations must serve entire professions, not just members of a particular professional membership organization.  Although NAEP had ceased requiring membership for CEP candidates, the Certification Program also had to become administratively independent of its parent membership organization in all matters involving certification.
 
Accordingly, NAEP in 1993 established ABCEP as an administratively independent certifying body within NAEP, and in 1999 incorporated ABCEP as separate, 501(c)(6) not-for-profit corporation conferring the CEP on meritorious senior environmental professionals.  ABCEP also adopted (and adapted) NAEP’s Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice.  Table 1 presents a timeline of events relating to the CEP credential).
 
ABCEP By-Laws define seven purposes, to:
 

1. periodically evaluate professional standards to which environmental professionals should adhere,
2. maintain a certification credential for meritorious environmental professionals,
3. evaluate candidates applying for certification,
4. bestow upon candidates found to be meritorious relative to applicable professional standards the status of Certified Environmental Professional (CEP),
5.  maintain and enhance the credibility of the CEP credential,
6.  render the CEP credential available to qualified environmental professionals by all means consistent with the Academy’s Bylaws, and
7.  do everything necessary, proper advisable, or convenient for the accomplishment of the Academy’s purposes and objectives and to do all other things incidental to them or connected to them that are not otherwise forbidden.

Accreditation 
The problem of validating professionals, not only environmental professionals, resembles the problem of identifying a ‘Philosopher King’ as guardian of Utopia in Plato’s “Republic.”  Plato had strong feelings about the type of person who should serve, something along the lines of being intelligent, philosophical, objective, and benevolent… in short, much like Plato himself.  Yet, selecting such an individual (other than oneself) was difficult, as the selection would depend upon the choice of selectors.  The problem was recursive:  a valid Philosopher King could be chosen only by validated selectors, who would have been chosen by validated selectors of the selectors, with no clear end to the chain.  Few utopias, therefore, exist.
 
Table 1.  History of the CEP Credential*
 

Ominously for democracies, Plato’s problem proved intractable.  Ominously for many professions, including the environmental professions, multiple certifying organizations have appeared, raising the thorny platonic issue of how each profession might select a valid Philosopher King.  Can the environmental professions select a certifying body trustworthy and trusted among consumers of their services?  Toward that end, certifying organizations have enhanced the credibility of their professional credentials via accreditation by organizations that serve multiple professions under a single umbrella.
 
Accordingly, ABCEP strategically sought to protect and enhance its stature and credibility among practitioners outside of NAEP, as well as among consumers of environmental services.  To do this, ABCEP applied to the highly regarded Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards (CESB) for accreditation as a professional certification organization.  Following lengthy and rigorous review, in April 2004 CESB; headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland; granted accreditation of ABCEP.
 
ABCEP’s accreditation, reviewed periodically, has been maintained consistently.  The Council accredits Certified Industrial Hygienists and other widely recognized professionals.  Its Member Boards include the following not-for-profit certifying organizations (see www.cesb.org):
 
--AACE International,
--Academy of Board Certified Environmental Professionals,
--American Academy of Environmental Engineers,
--American Board of Health Physics,
--American Board of Industrial Hygiene,
--American Indoor Air Quality Council,
--American Society of Professional Estimators,
--Board of Environmental, Health & Safety Auditor Certifications,
--Building Inspection Engineering Certification Institute,
--Certified Environmental, Safety and Health Trainer Board of Certification,
--Institute of Hazardous Materials Management,
--Institute of Professional Environmental Practice,
--National Academy of Forensic Engineers, and
--Society of Wetlands Scientists Professional Certification Program.
 
Philosophy of CEP Candidate Evaluation

The philosophy underpinning evaluation of CEP candidates is special.  Most fundamentally, evaluation is conducted via peer review, in contrast to other credentials that are awarded based upon results of a short-answer or multiple-choice examination.  Peer review is the principle that underlies the peerless American justice system, requiring trial of defendants before a jury of their peers.  Peer review also underpins the academic system for evaluating manuscripts submitted for publication, and evaluating grant applications for funding.  In short, peer review is the best solution yet devised to solve the platonic problem of selecting a Philosopher King, and is embodied in democratic government, in the jury-based justice system, in the academic publication system… and in evaluation of candidates for the CEP credential. 
 
CEP applicants must show evidence of having earned a college or university degree from an accredited institution, that is, one whose accreditation is recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation, which weeds out ‘diploma mills’.  ABCEP assumes that CEP candidates who earned such a degree were tested sufficiently via fact-based short-answer and multiple-choice questioning in their fields of expertise and beyond.  Accordingly, CEP candidate examinations are conducted via essay questions completed without supervision and submitted whenever ready.  These and other special features of the CEP, such as in-depth candidate evaluation via interviews and essays, have earned broad recognition of the CEP credential in government, industry, consulting, academia, and in the U. S. military.
 
The CEP is special also in facilitating self-evaluation by potential applicants before they apply.  This is accomplished by publicizing all essay examination questions on ABCEP’s web site (www.abcep.org) from which applicants choose five to answer.  In the CEP evaluation system, questions are not sprung on candidates by surprise.  Unlike correct-or-incorrect multiple-choice or short-answer questions, essay responses are tailored to each candidate’s professional experience.  Essay responses facilitate evaluation of the degree of depth and clarity of the candidate’s thinking, and his or her ability to communicate and persuade.  More than being correct or incorrect, CEP candidate essay responses are judged by their quality and credibility, much like a manuscript submitted for publication.  Each essay question is no more a surprise to the applicant than is the question addressed by a manuscript submitted for publication by a prospective author.  In both cases a professional-quality product is expected and, if not provided, the result typically is rejection.
 
Three side benefits result from public availability of CEP examination essay questions.  First, exam security is assured:  no potential applicant conceivably can gain advantage over any other by obtaining prior knowledge of exam questions, as each potential applicant has equal prior access.  Second, the ability to evaluate one’s readiness prior to application is enhanced.  Third, the rejection rate of CEP candidates is, I believe, relatively low.  When I last calculated it, the rejection rate was about 10 percent.  This probably reflects the decision of less-prepared potential applicants to develop further professionally before applying for the CEP credential.
 
The CEP also is special if not unique in revolving around a Certification Review Panel whose activities are coordinated by a Lead Reviewer.  Each CEP candidate is evaluated by such a Panel, to which fully seven members of the (much larger) Certification Review Board are assigned.  The large size of each Panel protects candidates against the possibility of a ‘rogue review’, as just over half of all respondents must favor certification; one dissenter will not prevail.  Further, the Panel system preserves independence of peer reviews by directing all reviews to the Lead Reviewer, who is the only team member who sees the full scope of Panel member responses.

The CEP-In-Training (CEP-IT) Program
Environmental professionals contemplating application for the CEP credential may participate in the CEP-In-Training Program, which former ABCEP Board of Trustees President Jim Yawn and myself have co-administered over the past several years.  Those wishing to participate in the Program (‘CEP-ITs’) are assigned a mentor, who guides the CEP-IT toward developing the prerequisites (and confidence!) needed to apply for the CEP credential.  This program promotes professional interaction between mentors and ‘mentees’, hopefully toward establishing and maintaining long-term professional (and optionally personal) relationships.  It also provides an avenue for CEPs to earn needed Certification Maintenance Points each year.
 
Mechanics of Certification
Certification Program expenses are paid primarily from administrative fees to applicants and annual dues of CEPs.  Environmental professionals now must complete the CEP application online via the ABCEP web site (www.abcep.org).  CEPs are awarded in any of five functional areas, which represent areas of emphasis of a practitioner.  Applicants have a choice of five functional areas, ranging from emphasis on technical to academic to administrative functions, as follows:
 
--Environmental Assessment: evaluation of risks to (or past impacts upon) the occupants of ecosystems, workplaces, or residences exerted by physical, chemical, or biological agents to which exposure may occur (or may have occurred);
 
--Environmental Documentation:  preparation of reports, presentation of facts, and completion of other actions to establish administrative records demonstrating compliance with environmental statutes, regulations, and permits;
 
--Environmental Operations:  management of facilities in accordance with requirements of environmental statutes, regulations, and permits;
 
--Environmental Planning:  arrangement for future facility construction, operation, and/or management in accordance with anticipated requirements of environmental statutes, regulations, and permits (or permit renewals); and
 
--Environmental Research and Education:  conducting and reporting on original investigations into the dynamics of environmental phenomena, and teaching about such phenomena as investigated by oneself and/or other investigators.
 
When completed, an administration fee is paid.  Applicant files are sent to the CRB Chairperson, who assigns a Certification Review Panel that is identified by a unique number.  Assigned CRB members may recuse themselves if they have (or perceive) a conflict of interest, which has happened from time to time.
 
Candidates arrange to have official transcripts attesting to their studies and degrees, and eight supporting letters, sent to ABCEP’s office, from which they are distributed with other application materials to the candidate’s Certification Review Panel.  The candidate and a designated supervisor or client both are interviewed by the Lead Reviewer, who raises any issues of concern expressed by Panel members.  Although only the Lead Reviewer conducts the interviews, each candidate is richly represented to each Panel member.  Indeed, Panel members become quite familiar with candidates’ education, affiliations, experience, publication record, and abilities.
 
ABCEP aims for completion of candidate evaluation within three months of application assignment to a Panel.  Panel members are asked to complete their (online) reviews (‘Action Reports’) within one month of assignment.  The Lead Reviewer is asked to complete his/her own evaluation, as well as conduct interviews, within three months of assignment.  The Lead Reviewer recommends to the CRB Chairperson either certification or denial of certification based upon synthesis of all individual Panel member peer reviews into a single full-Panel recommendation. 
 
The CRB Chairperson’s role is to make the final decision to certify or deny certification based upon consideration of all peer reviews and other communications, to assure that the full-Panel recommendation was fair rather than biased.  I rarely if ever have reversed a Lead Reviewer.  CEP certificates are issued, signed by the Lead Reviewer and CRB Chairperson.
 
Certification Maintenance.  To remain certified, CEPs must keep current in their field.  In 1994 ABCEP established the Certification Maintenance Program (CMP), requiring CEPs to demonstrate via a point system that they have kept current by engaging in a range of professional activities.  Such activities have included employment, attending conferences, teaching courses and workshops, publishing articles, and serving the profession on committees or in other ways.  ABCEP’s program initially functioned on a five-year cycle of Certification Maintenance Point evaluation.  Requirements of the Council on Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards for our continued accreditation, however, have required ABCEP to join other professions by adopting an annual certification maintenance cycle period.

Status and Stature of the CEP Credential
As shown, the CEP credential was unique and forward-looking in 1979, its year of inception.  Today it remains so.  I know of no other credential that has achieved accreditation based upon such a dynamic, broad body of knowledge that is defined, not as much by a list of facts, but by a list of the journals and other sources of emerging information.  CEP examinations are tailored to the specialization of each candidate via the choice of responding to five essay questions from a larger, wide-ranging list.
 
CEPs are certified based upon their ability to function in a regime of fast-paced publication of research and administrative developments, not their ability to memorize lists of facts.  In my own experience, for example, regulatory changes may respond to findings that airborne particulate matter (PM) can exert adverse health effects with brief (real-time) exposure (Michaels 1996, 1997, 1998; Michaels and Kleinman 2000).  Regulatory limits on airborne PM currently reflect the previous belief that only longer-term exposures could damage health, resulting in regulatory limits on only the daily and annual average concentrations of airborne PM.  This example indicates clearly that no short-answer or multiple-choice questions will reflect our evolving understanding of the public health and regulatory issues relating to airborne PM… but essayists can conduct research into the current scientific and/or regulatory literature to produce a professional-quality explication of the pros and cons of adding, say, a one-hour average to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s arsenal of airborne PM regulations.
 
The uniqueness of the CEP credential has garnered respect and acceptance.  Indeed, as a result, the CEP has earned broad recognition in hiring, salary determination, and career advancement in government, industry, consulting, academia, and the military.  The military, for example, has exhibited a special interest in the CEP credential, in part because military environmental professionals must maximize their credibility among civilian populations where closure of military base situated in or near civilian communities are planned or underway.  These projects are enormous, and enormously expensive.  Their costs can be mitigated significantly if civilian stakeholders accept base closure proposals.  In short, competence enhances credibility, and credibility enhances economy.
 
That reasonable people are more likely to accept reasonable proposals that are presented by credible professionals is a truism in almost any arena, not just in the military.  The CEP credential has contributed significantly to validation of senior environmental professionals in many or most arenas.  Having earned my own CEP in the Functional Area of Environmental Assess-mint has enhanced my career as an environmental professional specializing in assessment and management of toxicological risks to human health potentially posed by environmental contaminants.  I am proud of ABCEP and the CEP credential conferred on me, which have enhanced my credibility and career, just as so many of my CEP colleagues have expressed similar feelings about the positive role of ABCEP and the CEP credential in their careers.
 
Literature Cited

Michaels, R. A.  Airborne particle excursions contributing to daily average particle levels may be managed via a one-hour standard, with possible public health benefits.  Aerosol Science and Technology, 25:437-44, November 1996;
 
Michaels, R. A.  Particulate matter policy.  Science, 278:1,696 (letter); 5 December 1997;
 
Michaels, R. A.  Permissible daily airborne particle mass levels encompass brief excursions to the ‘London fog’ range, which may contribute to daily mortality and morbidity in communities.  Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 13(6):385-94, June 1998;
 
Michaels, R. A.  Three decades of the CEP credential and environmental professional certification.  Environmental Practice, 11(1):52-6, March 2009, online http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1466046609090097, 3 January 2017;
 
Michaels, R. A.; and M. T. Kleinman.  Incidence and apparent health-significance of brief airborne particle excursions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 32:93-105, February 2000.