Dear David,
Thanks for posting this.
Having just got back from speaking at last week's Ecoforum in Queensland, where I had several conversations on crc care's new scheme and how auditing works across the various states & provinces, it may be worth reminding colleagues that many professional bodies offer chartership for practitioners in contaminated land management.
We also of course have two supra-chartered professional qualifications - the specialist in land condition register (silc) and (specifically for the engineers and geologists among us) the register of ground engineering professionals (rogep).
Colleagues should also be aware of a report on the range of skills needed to deliver contaminated land policy - the report was commissioned by defra and written by myself. It is available on the defra pages on the .gov.uk website.
Finally can I urge folks coming across reports that they feel are sub-standard to use the formal routes of complaint offered by professional bodies (including silc) where they feel standards have not been good enough. Vague, anonymous allegations don't help raise standards and may indeed be counter productive.
Best regards,
Paul Nathanail
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
-----Original Message-----
From: Walters David <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:06:35
To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Walters David <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ICRCL Standards
Further to David Jackson's email below regarding Australian Contaminated Land Auditors, please find below comments from Michael Dunbavan, a New South Wales registered Auditor. Michael is not registered to our jiscmail forum and hence this posting on his behalf.
Regards
David Walters
David - I am one of those Australian Auditors, and I agree with the need for a support team. One aspect of competence is knowing when you have reached you own limit and asking for assistance from a person with relevant expertise.
The contaminated land industry in Australia, through a centre of excellence known as CRC CARE, is about to launch a scheme for Certification of Site Contamination Practitioners. The issue of competence is addressed for that scheme. I am one of the members of the Advisory Board for its development - so (pushing my own barrow) I think it has a lot of merit. Of course, there has been huge input from a wide range of sources, including environmental regulators - so I am not claiming any authorship.
Sounds like the UK could do with at least a basic certification scheme.
Have a look at the Scheme at:
http://www.crccare.com/products-and-services/certification-scheme
If you would like more information on the Scheme, please contact Andrew Beveridge at CRC CARE.
Regards
Dr Michael Dunbavan
Senior Principal Environmental Consultant NSW EPA Accredited Site Auditor
Level 19, Tower B, Citadel Towers
799 Pacific Highway
Chatswood NSW 2067
t: +61 2 9406 1206
m: +61 419 395 971
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David E Jackson
Sent: 04 November 2014 12:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ICRCL Standards
Dear All
As I am sure you will all be aware, at least those of your who are “competent” (joke!) NPPF places the responsibility for development on the developer - Para 120 "Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner” - not the LA. Hence, it is not for the LA to be competent - although I’m sure he/she is!!!
As to what is competent, I tend to favour an Australian approach, that is, that no single person can realistically possess the expertise in the broad range of skills to be considered singularly competent. Hence a "competent person" is a person who has access to TEAM of competent people... geoscientists conduct field investigations, soils - soil scientists, hydrogeologists - groundwater, ground gas specialists - ground gas, radiologists - radiation, chemists - conduct analysis, toxicologists/ecotoxicologists and exposure specialists - conduct risk assessments (and derive C4SL!), remediation engineers prepare and implement remediation, environmental lawyers interpret the law, planners negotiate the planning, risk communicators convey the results to the public/stakeholders. Everyone competent in their own field - but not competent in anybody else's field.
So what is competent. My view is that a competent person is some one who knows more about it than I do!
How do you measure that, well referring to the Australian system again (boring!!!) he/she usually hold a degree, often a higher degree/PhD relevant to the competence, has at least 8years experience delivering similar projects or parts of projects relevant to their competence, to a high standard (i.e. no adverse regulator comments (examples of two recent reports and regulator comments are provided), has a demonstrable program of relevant CPD including a learning plan going forward and insurance of course.
Competence is usually further demonstrated by a series of written submissions (academic style essays on legislation, policy, practice and technical developments in their field of competence) all designed to demonstrate their knowledge and experience in their particular field of competence. Finally a competent person (lets call then an Auditor for ease) pays an annual subscription of 2000pounds per annum to operate as such. The scheme has been quite successful in Ausse at weedling out the time-wasters and cowboys and leaves only the people who a qualified, experience, highly regarded amongst their peers, committed, self managed and accountable. Details are available on various State and Federal web pages under Contaminated Sites Auditors.
Now compare that to the proposed SoBRA scheme. Hmmmm.
So what are the benefits of such a onerous scheme - firstly the standard of submissions goes up, regulators gain confidence in the reports and competent practitioners and thus subject them to less costly and delaying scrutiny, projects run by competent practitioners are faster, cheaper, more sustainable (in the true sense of the meaning, not the economic-babble that pollies tend to use), the cost of LA goes down, the value of competent persons goes up, fees go up, status goes up, more education/training, more expenditure on flash cars and exotic holidays all contributing to greater economic growth, more taxes, exports etc. Clients win, LA regulators win, the environment wins, tax man wins and the competent persons win! WIN WIN WIN!
So what’s the alternative... wam-bam 1500quid- jobs a goodun!
Comments always welcome.
David E Jackson
_____________________________________________________________________________
All emails you send over the internet are not secure unless they have been encrypted. For further details, please see: www.getsafeonline.org/protecting-yourself
_____________________________________________________________________________
Do it online at www.lbhf.gov.uk
Help us keep your council tax bill down and protect spending on vital public services - use our website to find information, view your account, make payments, apply for services and report problems.
New - create an account - Want to manage your council tax, benefits claim or parking permits online? Create an account now at www.lbhf.gov.uk/myaccount
_____________________________________________________________________________
All emails you send over the internet are not secure unless they have been encrypted. For further details, please see: www.getsafeonline.org/protecting-yourself
_____________________________________________________________________________
|