Information On The New Site Contamination Scheme
Site Contamination Practitioners Australia (SCPA) and The Certified Environmental Practitioners Scheme (CEnvP), Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ) have implemented an amended certification scheme for site contamination specialists. The single scheme will be run by CEnvP starting on the 30th of September 2017.
If you have already applied (pre-29th September 2017) nothing about the application process will be different for you, except the specialisation you will be awarded will now be called “Site Contamination” rather than “Contaminated Land”.
For further information on the new scheme, please visit CEnvP website.
ALGA representative appointed to Site Contamination Prevention Australia NEC
ALGA representative appointed to Site Contamination Prevention Australia NEC
Site Contamination Practitioners Australia is proud to announce the appointment of Ms Elisabethe Dank, the CEO of ALGA to the National Executive Committee (NEC) Site Contamination Prevention Australia. The NEC is the governing body of the Site Contamination Prevention Australia certification scheme which meets five to six times a year to monitor the scheme’s progress, approve policy and to endorse recommendations for Site Contamination Prevention Australia certification. Ms Dank brings a wealth of experience having been with ALGA since 2008 and has previously worked with professional associations such as the Australian Water Association. The NEC now consists of eight members, with an independent chair, two industry representatives, one regulator representative, two consultant representatives, one ALGA representative and a representative from CRC CARE.
Insights from successful certification applicants
Insights from successful certification applicants
Three Site Contamination Prevention Australia certified practitioners who have completed the application process and interview share their experience.
Transcript of the podcast
Carly Clark who is Principal Scientist with SEMF and Sector Leader, Environment in Melbourne, Joe Pedicini who is Principal Consultant with LBW Environmental Projects in Adelaide, and Christopher Sandiford who is Senior Associate Environmental Scientist with Senversa in Melbourne.
Q1: How much time did you spend on preparing your application?
Carly: In total I probably spent about 40 hours, including a review process.
Joe: 40 to 50 hours definitely. Particularly in considering how I would approach the questions on the competencies.
Christopher: I was probably around the 30 to 40 to hour mark, a lot of it going back trying to access information from historical reports that were relevant. Actually when looking at what might work it was probably more like 50 hours in the end.
Q2: What was the most difficult thing about preparing an application for certification?
Carly: The most difficult thing for me was putting time aside to actually prepare the submission. I think when I was reading through I initially under estimated the time required to detail the project specifics for each of the six competencies, and the submission deadline seemed to approach very quickly. I also found it quite difficult to find a balance in my response around regurgitating the NEPM, to demonstrate that I knew what I was talking about versus demonstrating relevant field and reporting experience. It took a fair bit of time to go through reporting archives to dig out suitable reports.
Paul (Interviewer): By that do you mean connecting your examples with the NEPM?
Carly: Yes, so rather than just regurgitating the NEPM and saying what you would do in an assessment process actually going back and finding a report and demonstrating how you followed the NEPM in that assessment.
Joe: I’d agree with Carly making time for it and having that deadline approaching quickly was one problem. For me the most significant difficulty was trying to align 20 years and hundreds of projects into the six competencies questions and trying to keep my demonstrations of what I knew very specific to a project. And being able to say I learnt this through this project. Because in reality, I learnt what I know from a hundred different projects, and trying to put a project or two or three to a particular competency and demonstrate directly that I had personally gained that experience and not just read about it was very difficult. I found myself going back over and over and changing it, trying to work out which projects I would use and trying to keep them more relevant.
Christopher: The most difficult thing was identifying historical reports that I could still get access to that met the guidelines. I have worked with a few different companies and don’t have access to historical reports. I would really recommend starting the process early, and trying to identify four, five, six or more projects that may be relevant and gaining client agreement to use those projects early on so when it comes time to write the response, and get into the nitty-gritty of it you’ve got a few different reports that you can draw on.
Paul (interviewer): Did you have to contact previous clients that you no longer worked for to get their permission to use the reports you worked on for them?
Christopher: In the end I didn’t, I thought I may have to. But I was able to identify enough current client reports I was able to use, but I was thinking I may need to do. It was a time critical thing in the end that I wanted to use current client reports. But give yourself enough time to identify those reports and try and get as many as you can in the bank to make the actually assessment writing process a lot easier.
Q3: What sort of advice would give people in preparing their application?
Carly: Make sure you allow enough time. Don’t underestimate how much time it’s going to take. I think it’s very important to use the self-assessment tool appropriately as a screening tool to indicate whether you are likely to achieve certification. You can then identify knowledge gaps and from there training needs and align that to your work. The application process is time consuming and it’s important to be confident that adequate justification of experience in each of the competencies can be provided to demonstrate suitability of certification.
Joe: If you have the luxury of time and have got enough time ahead of you, before you go for certification that you be familiar with the competencies and how they are set out and start logging projects that you work on along those lines. So when it comes time to prepare an application you’ve got your projects lined up, you know which ones relate to which competencies and you can make a really good job of the application. If on the other hand, you don’t plan to wait that long or you’re not that early in your career I would say don’t rush it, take your time and look at the competencies and try to line that up as best you can with specific examples of your work.
Christopher: I would get people to read through the whole process initially and do use that assessment tool, it’s quite handy and doesn’t take too long. It is quite judgemental and difficult to work out initially where you may fit in, but once you’ve done it, I know I went back and did it a couple of times after starting the process, it helped to get my head around what was really involved. I thought it was really good to do early. I would probably say it’s good to knock off a little bit at a time, if you can identify some relevant assessment reports that you’ve got and information that you can get down, then do it in bits. I would really try and emphasize identifying particular jobs and reports you’ve worked on early and getting that client approval early on so you can have access to information when it comes time to write the report.
Q4: How did you find the interview process?
Carly: I actually found the interview process quite enjoyable. I was initially so nervous for the panel interview because it’s very different to any interview I have had previously, and it seemed very daunting. But I liked the idea of how it was run with the case study assessment and I was given ample time to gather my thoughts and write down some notes and then the interview gave me an opportunity to further demonstrate my knowledge around contaminated land assessment and the questions that were asked by the interviewers prompted me to provide additional details as required, where I may not have been strong in my written response, I had a chance to verbally explain what I meant.
Joe: My experience was very similar. I’ve sat the auditor interview once and that was so much more confrontational; I have to say that when I went into this interview I thought it might be similar and that was my only concern. But in fact, your assurance (Paul) before the interview; you said the interview would be supportive and about teasing out those things that perhaps had not been demonstrated clearly in my application- and that was what it was. I found the case study and the interviewers, the panel and the questions to be very good, very much about trying to explain things that perhaps I had not covered well. I found I actually enjoyed the case study, it was very similar to a project I worked on, I certainly wasn’t concerned technically when I saw it. And the questions were very well aimed and did help me in fact explain more than I had initially thought about. I found it very supportive.
Christopher: I wouldn’t say my experience was enjoyable like Carly. It was a positive experience; it’s not often that you’re put under the hammer like that. But I think for me it was going back to basics and having a look at the case study you had in front of you and putting together a conceptual site model in your head and looking at the source-path-receptor and then really trying to sum that up and answer the questions they (interview panel) required. It all pulled together using that fundamental way we answer most of our questions in contaminated land management. The questions were logical and what I might have expected. Maybe a little more around how you would advise a client, I wasn’t expecting that and maybe some of the questions were a little bit different to what I might have anticipated but were basic and fundamental questions around how we assess and manage risks associated with contaminated land.
Q5: Overall, what are your thoughts on the assessment process?
Carly: Overall, I thought the assessment process was robust. The national scheme provides confidence that investigations will be conducted in accordance with national guidelines and reports will be prepared to an appropriate standard. I think the application process was more time consuming than I had anticipated and maybe than it needs to be. But I think the interview was the key component in demonstrating knowledge and I was thankful I had the opportunity to sit the interview process.
Joe: Initially on seeing the application I thought I have had 20 years in the business I should be able to fill this in and get an automatic certification. But in working through the process I started to think this is a good opportunity to demonstrate and go through what you know and put it into specific categories and see where you are really competent and where you need improvements or where you may not actually want to venture into, like specifically into remediation management. So it is a really good opportunity to go through the application and the interview and tease out what you do know. Overall the process was very good, possibly the only comment I would have, is that I could have spent less time on the application and assumed I would get an interview and focus on the interview. I think the application process might be refined with time so that it is different for different levels of expertise or for a person who has been in the industry a different amount of time.
Paul: Would you suggest for people who have a lot of experience the focus should be more on an interview? Is that what you’re thinking?
Joe: Yes, that is what I am thinking.
Christopher: It is a difficult process to set up a national wide scheme. It’s done really well. The combination of the written and the interview I think really teased out a lot of the key issues. If I missed things in the written response, which by the end of 40 hours I just wanted to get it in, it gives you the opportunity to follow up on things in the interview. It is a reasonable process for quite a difficult scheme to set up.
Interview with Chief and Deputy Chief Assessor
Interview with Chief and Deputy Chief Assessor
Chief and Deputy Chief Assessor share their views on their roles within the certification scheme.
Transcript
Today we are speaking with the Chief Assessor and Deputy Chief Assessor for the Site Contamination Prevention Australia certification scheme. Ross McFarland, who is Technical Director with AECOM in Canberra is the Chief Assessor and Ivan Kwan who is Associate & Principal Environmental Engineer with Golder Associates in Perth is the Deputy Chief Assessor.
Q1: What role do you play in the assessment process?
Ross: My role as Chief Assessor is to oversee the assessment process including ensuring the consistency of the assessment goes ahead, that we have the right kind of people on the assessment panel and that there is no bias or conflicts of interest occurring during the assessment. We of course do not have a role in influencing the panel, my role is just to make sure the process of panel assessment is done in an appropriate manner with no bias, and is consistent.
Ivan: My role is to assist and support Ross in his role, particularly when there is perceived or potential conflict of interest. For example, if there was a person from a company Ross works for (being assessed) I would take over the role of observer of procedures and proceedings of the panel.
Q2: What do you think is the most difficult thing about rolling out an assessment process?
Ross: The most challenging thing is maintaining a consistency of assessment. The process itself uses panellists from across Australia and there are differences across jurisdictions in terms of how contaminated site assessment and remediation takes place, thus ensuring we produce a process that is able to deal with and maintain a consistency across Australia is really important. That’s one of the biggest challenges. Another one is keeping to the deadlines, because there is a lot of work involved in just ensuring the Site Contamination Prevention Australia process goes ahead and meets all of the delivery deadlines we set for ourselves.
Ivan: I have to agree with Ross in terms of deadlines and timeframes. There is a process set in place and we are all busy practitioners and we strive to meet that process and timeframe. The other challenge is trying to roll out a process that is fair and equitable for all practitioners. We have to understand that practitioners come from different walks of life, there is no one size fits all and it is sometimes difficult to foresee all the permutations that different people may have. The positive to the process is also that there is a feedback loop, and that any feedback and learnings can be incorporated into the assessment process in the future.
Q3: How have processes been working thus far? Are there any lessons learned?
Ross: The process has grown really well. It started off with lots of interaction between all of the assessment panels and individual parties and there was a lot of effort put into getting the baseline right and get a consistency of assessment together. That seems to have worked really well and we are able to now use fairly well established processes in order to get the assessment panels to work properly. One of the things that has worked best in that respect is the preliminary discussions with the panellists who are selected where the minds of the assessors are aligned so that they all understand the importance of creating a national baseline and ensuring a national consistency. Also dealing with the process where one size doesn’t fit all and you have to have some kind of measure of professional wisdom to get people to fit inside the assessment process itself.
Ivan: Adding to that Ross, we have to remember that the certification program is a national program, and as you mentioned, getting people to align their thoughts early on in the piece has been very helpful and efficient in the process. Someone who is certified in one state needs to meet the standard to be able to be certified in another state and vice versa, so it is a transferable certification. Based on my understanding of the debriefs to date, all of the panels have been consistent in their review and assessment of the applications. We are all very busy practitioners and as the assessors have their independent workloads as well, one of the lessons I have personally learnt is not to leave it too late, because the effort that has been made in the application merits a sufficient amount of time from the assessors dedicated to review and assess appropriately.
Q4: How do you manage issues of bias or conflicts of interest?
Ivan: The industry is fairly niche, and most practitioners will cross paths with each other at some point in time. I think the main thing is to declare any potential or perceived conflicts from the beginning and I endeavour to try and do that. In addition, maintaining a professional opinion and trying to see things from a client’s perspective, industry perspective and consultant/ applicant perspective to provide a balanced view is important. All decisions and all rulings need to be transparent and therefore any perceived or actual conflicts of interests need to be put on the table fairly early on in the piece.
Ross: We have really developed a rigorous conflict of interest process, where we have tools to identify early the potential for an actual or perceived conflict of interest. We use the reasonable person test in that respect and we use our wisdom and experience in this area to identify both actual and perceived conflicts of interest. The next part of that is confirming whether that potential or actual conflict exists and then communicating that to the parties involved. If there is a potential or actual conflict of interest, then we have a disclosure and declaration process and management process. The one that has been most effective is where Ivan and I replace each other in the Chief Assessor role, when someone going through an application process where there may be a perceived or actual conflict of interest for me, then Ivan would take over for me, and vice versa. I think we have a good system to deal with conflict and as Ivan mentioned, as we go through the process we have solid documentation so that we can be transparent so that people can see we have made the effort to make sure there is no potential or actual conflict of interest. We also provide an opportunity to the applicants to say whether they perceive an actual or perceived conflict of interests with the panellists as well as the Chief Assessor and the Deputy Chief Assessor.
Q5: What do you see in the future for the assessment process and the certification scheme?
Ivan: One thing we have talked about is timeframes and the ability to meet those. I think as the pool of assessors grows, there will be less pressure on the current pool of assessors and it will allow more diversity into the assessment process. In terms of the future of the certification scheme I think there is a lot of interest from industry. We have seen a lot of practitioners now go through the certification process. I think clients are now starting to see the value in having a certification process which sets a standard in industry and I have seen personally a couple of client briefs to consultants which actually state they would like a certified practitioner or equivalent working on the project and on the team.
Ross: I was also seeing the future as having more tools available for the applicant’s to use, and also for the practitioners that have been certified to use in their day to day operations. I have noticed the quite rapid uptake of the certification process by industry and of course the regulators are requiring or will be requiring this certification in 18 months or so as well. I can only see this certification scheme will continue to grow stronger.
Interview with Site Contamination Prevention Australia assessors
Interview with Site Contamination Prevention Australia assessors
Two Site Contamination Prevention Australia assessors share their experience of the assessment process.
Todd Mitchell, Associate Director with AECOM in Melbourne.
Ruth Keogh, Principal Environmental Scientist with FYFE in Adelaide.
Q1. Assessors participating in assessment subcommittees can spend on average 30 hours of their own time reviewing applications in a process which runs over 40 days- this is a considerable commitment for busy professionals- Why have you volunteered your time to participate in the assessment subcommittee?
Ruth: I volunteered to participate in the assessment subcommittee because I wanted to support the scheme. I believe that it (such a scheme) is overdue and has the potential to provide a number of benefits to the contaminated land profession as well as to regulators and clients. I think it has the potential to help raise the standard of work, particularly in reporting associated with contaminated site assessment and remediation, and it also provides a career goal for up and coming professionals. It also provides some recognition for people who have been in the industry for a while, recognising their knowledge and skills, particularly for people who do not want to achieve auditor accreditation.
Todd: Having been involved in the contaminated land industry for over two decades, I can see a real advantage for accreditation in industry for practitioners, especially for those who are not auditors and do not want to be an auditor. I have been pretty keen to participate in the subcommittees to promote the program. It also serves to improve the quality of work across the contaminated land industry.
Q2: What is the hardest thing about being part of an assessment subcommittee?
Todd: In short, the hardest thing is finding time outside of work to look at applications. I am very careful in assessing each application, and I want to do so equally and to provide measured evaluation.
Ruth: I would have to agree with Todd. The hardest thing I have found is that there is a lot of time involved and, like Todd, I also want to make sure I do a good job when I assess the applications. So I found there was quite a bit of juggling with other commitments to try and meet the deadlines. The other thing that I think is a bit difficult is that, with having three assessors on each subcommittee (assessment panel), there can be some discrepancies in our conclusions. It hasn’t ultimately proved to be too difficult, but there is a certain amount of calibration required to ensure that we are all judging the applications in a similar way.
Q3: What is a common weakness you have come across when reviewing an application?
Ruth: A common weakness in applications is where applicants are failing to specifically address the criteria and provide enough information and personal examples to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. Some of the applicants appear to rely quite heavily on their CVs (curriculum vitae), particularly some of the more experienced ones, and also on their example reports, to demonstrate their experience. But we are actually looking for professionals who are able to show that they can communicate well and address stated objectives, because we are looking to accredit professionals who can improve the standard of reporting across the industry.
Todd: I tend to agree with Ruth. The most common weakness is the applicant’s lack of personal experience. It’s not just about the number of years you have been in the environment industry. In order to demonstrate the level of competency required for assessors to be satisfied of a person’s expertise as a practitioner, the person will need a minimum level of experience at a broad range of contaminated land competencies. Addressing the competency elements by cutting and pasting from the NEPM is a common negative observation by the assessors; you need to be a practitioner.
Q4: Each of you have participated in two assessment rounds as assessors and have conducted interviews of applicants. In your opinion what do you think an applicant can do to prepare for an interview?
Todd: The interview essentially consists of a series of questions based on a case study. You might get asked questions about specific technical issues, but applicants should be thinking about the case study with a conceptual site model in mind. This is really key to communicating in the interview.
Ruth: I would agree with Todd. I think the conceptual site model is particularly important and an understanding of how to come up with a conceptual site model. But I would say that if an applicant does have the required experience in the site contamination field they shouldn’t need to prepare for an interview, because the interview is about getting them to show us that they do have that experience and knowledge to address the issues that are put forward in a case study. Also, we would expect the interviewee would show an appropriate level of competency and confidence in order to be successful at the interview stage.
Preparing an Site Contamination Prevention Australia certification application
Preparing an Site Contamination Prevention Australia certification application
Short video (5:08 ) providing an overview of requirements for certification including tips on preparing competency statements and preparing for interview.
Preparing an Site Contamination Prevention Australia certification application
My name is Paul Saeki and in this short video I am talking about preparing an Site Contamination Prevention Australia application for certification.
Site Contamination Prevention Australia certification is an accreditation designed specifically for contaminated site practitioners.
By practitioners we mean contaminated site professionals who are able to conduct the full scope of assessment, management and remediation of a contaminated site to a satisfactory level of competence.
The most important aspect of preparing an application is ensuring you are eligible;
You will need;
- 5 years full time professional practice in contaminated sites
- 3 years of which must be in roles with direct responsibility for the assessment, management and remediation of contaminated sites
- Must be within last 10 years
- Along with either undergraduate or postgraduate qualifications in a related science or engineering discipline.
Intending applicants with different qualifications are encouraged to contact Site Contamination Prevention Australia to get further feedback.
You will also need to prepare supporting documentation including;
- A completed Continuing Professional Development Diary, requiring 50 hours of CPD activities
- Two referee statements
- At least two clients reports or other documents which are attributable to you which provide an example of your technical knowledge and writing.
- A copy of your qualifications
- A copy of the self-assessment tool
Applicants are expected to prepare competency statements which outline the technical knowledge and experience within the context of the six Site Contamination Prevention Australia competencies.
Competency statements represent the core of the application.
Each of the six competency statements should be no longer than 2,000 words.
Competency statements should address each competency and where possible each competency sub-element
Assessors should be able to read the statements for each of the 6 competency elements and answer the question “has the applicant provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they are practicing at the required level of competence in this element?”
Each competency statement should address these requirements
• Provide examples of Personal competency. Clearly describe the actions and decisions which are due to your personal efforts.
Where you have worked as a team member, ensure your statement claims only actions and decisions which are attributable to your efforts within the team.
• use Verifiable evidence. The statement should describe actual actions and decisions which are attributable to you.
Include descriptions of how you undertook specific tasks or the process used to arrive at a specific decision, as well as the outcome.
• provide a Variety of evidence. Show that you are able to apply your competence in a range of situations and for a variety of contaminants.
As a guide, each competency element should be demonstrated in at least 3 unique situations.
• show Leadership in your examples. Highlight the evidence which demonstrates your leadership roles in support of the requirement to demonstrate direct responsibility for recommendations or actions dealing with contaminated sites, for at least 3 years.
This should be consistent with the details provided in your professional practice statement.
Here are some tips from previous successful applicants
Give yourself plenty of time- applicants may spend up to 40 to 50 hours preparing an application
Use the competency assessment tool to hone in on your weak areas- use it multiple times
Do not just regurgitate the NEPM or standards, use examples from your working career to highlight instances where you have demonstrated application of NEPM or other standards
Link your statements and examples back to some of your client reports or other reports and supporting documentation where possible.
Tips on preparing for the interview
The interview is an opportunity for you to demonstrate your technical knowledge and experience and how you might apply them to a case study
Think about a conceptual site model when considering the case study
Behave in the interview as you would with a client explaining how you might conduct a site assessment, management or remediation, and provide reasons for your actions or considerations
For more information about preparing an application please visit the Site Contamination Prevention Australia website. We also have interviews with successful applicants who provide feedback on their experience. Alternately, please feel free to contact us via email or by phone if you have any questions.