development of a new “licensed” environmental professional (lep) system in bc

MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW “LICENSED” ENVIRONMENTAL “LICENSED” ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL (LEP) SYSTEM PROFESSIONAL (LEP) SYSTEM

IN BCIN BC

Roster Steering Committee/Roster Steering Committee/

LEP SubcommitteeLEP Subcommittee


Background - Understanding Background - Understanding TerminologyTerminology

Professional Expert (1999) Professional Expert (1999) == Approved Professional Approved Professional (2004) (2004) SEP?? (2005) SEP?? (2005)– ““Professional Experts” and “Approved Professionals” are Professional Experts” and “Approved Professionals” are

the same the same » currently appointed by the Director (MWLAP) to a “Roster” currently appointed by the Director (MWLAP) to a “Roster”

maintained by MWLAPmaintained by MWLAP

– The Roster is not independent of MWLAP; governance is The Roster is not independent of MWLAP; governance is through the Roster Steering Committee (RSC), which is through the Roster Steering Committee (RSC), which is also appointed by MWLAP (until recently) also appointed by MWLAP (until recently)

– Under the future system “Approved Under the future system “Approved Professionals” will not be appointed by Professionals” will not be appointed by MWLAPMWLAP



““LEP” is an interim term that has become LEP” is an interim term that has become common in BC in reference to a new review common in BC in reference to a new review system being developed for contaminated system being developed for contaminated sitessites

““LEP” originates from the Minister’s LEP” originates from the Minister’s Advisory Panel report that recommended a Advisory Panel report that recommended a “stand-alone and independent system of “stand-alone and independent system of Licensed Environmental Professionals”Licensed Environmental Professionals”



The term “LEP” is inaccurate; the system The term “LEP” is inaccurate; the system being put forward is not a stand-alone being put forward is not a stand-alone system, nor will the professionals be system, nor will the professionals be “licensed” in that sense“licensed” in that sense

nevertheless, for purposes of this nevertheless, for purposes of this presentation, will continue to use “LEP” for presentation, will continue to use “LEP” for continuity, but at some point it will changecontinuity, but at some point it will change



““Hybrid System” – proposed system is not a Hybrid System” – proposed system is not a true standalone system as recommended in true standalone system as recommended in the Panel Report, but will be much more the Panel Report, but will be much more independent than the current Roster systemindependent than the current Roster system



The scope of work for the new LEP system is The scope of work for the new LEP system is similar to that currently in place today, however similar to that currently in place today, however will also include risk managed siteswill also include risk managed sites– LEP’s will make recommendations to MWLAP, with LEP’s will make recommendations to MWLAP, with

respect to non-high risk sites, who will then go through respect to non-high risk sites, who will then go through the administrative process of issuing the regulatory the administrative process of issuing the regulatory instrumentsinstruments

– Quality control/assurance (QA/QC) will be managed Quality control/assurance (QA/QC) will be managed within the new system by the Board, not MWLAP as it within the new system by the Board, not MWLAP as it currently iscurrently is



Audit (former MWLAP terminology) Audit (former MWLAP terminology) == Quality Quality Review (current terminology by MWLAP) Review (current terminology by MWLAP) == Performance Assessment (LEP Framework Performance Assessment (LEP Framework Document)Document)– A percentage of the Roster submissions (currently A percentage of the Roster submissions (currently

10%) randomly selected for detailed technical and 10%) randomly selected for detailed technical and administrative review by MWLAP (now also RSC)administrative review by MWLAP (now also RSC)

– The primary means of achieving QA/QCThe primary means of achieving QA/QC

– Formerly disciplinary in nature, present emphasis is on Formerly disciplinary in nature, present emphasis is on education (consistent with future direction also)education (consistent with future direction also)



Options for Proponents:Options for Proponents:– Ministry ReviewMinistry Review

» As of July 15, no longer available for sites eligible for Roster As of July 15, no longer available for sites eligible for Roster or External reviews (defined by “Protocol 6”)or External reviews (defined by “Protocol 6”)

– External ReviewExternal Review» As of Nov 1, this option will no longer be available for sites As of Nov 1, this option will no longer be available for sites

eligible for Roster revieweligible for Roster review

– Roster ReviewRoster Review» As of Nov 1, will be the only option for eligible sitesAs of Nov 1, will be the only option for eligible sites

» In the future, will be the only option for “non-high risk” sitesIn the future, will be the only option for “non-high risk” sites


LEP Development TimelineLEP Development Timeline

2003 2004 2005O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M

Release of Final Considerations ReportEstablishment of LEP Subcommittee and Advisory GroupPublic SurveyFormuation and Public Comment on Draft RecommendationsFinalization of Recommendation LetterContract for Companion Framework DocumentRoundtable MeetingDevelopment and Release of Framework Document for Public CommentStage 3 LEP DevelopmentTaking Over of Performance AssessmentsRollover to LEP System


LEP Development InputLEP Development Input

LEP Advisory Group (representatives of industry LEP Advisory Group (representatives of industry stakeholders – CPPI, BCEIA, COFI, UDI, UBCM, stakeholders – CPPI, BCEIA, COFI, UDI, UBCM, Mining, Utilities, Cement Association of Canada, Mining, Utilities, Cement Association of Canada, Insurance Bureau of Canada)Insurance Bureau of Canada)

Public Opinion Survey (input received from Public Opinion Survey (input received from MWLAP, roster, owners, practitioners, etc.)MWLAP, roster, owners, practitioners, etc.)

Directly from RSC/Roster Approved ProfessionalsDirectly from RSC/Roster Approved Professionals Roundtable (representatives from LEP AG, LEPSC, Roundtable (representatives from LEP AG, LEPSC,

UBCM, Environment Canada, BCIA, CAB, SAB, UBCM, Environment Canada, BCIA, CAB, SAB, APEGBC, RSC)APEGBC, RSC)

Public Review and CommentPublic Review and Comment


LEP DevelopmentLEP DevelopmentKey DocumentsKey Documents

Considerations Document Considerations Document (http://www.apeg.bc.ca/aboutus/cs/documents/CSRSC-Report-WallysFinal.pdf)(http://www.apeg.bc.ca/aboutus/cs/documents/CSRSC-Report-WallysFinal.pdf)

Results of Survey Results of Survey (http://www.apeg.bc.ca/aboutus/cs/LicensedEnvironmentalProfessional.html)(http://www.apeg.bc.ca/aboutus/cs/LicensedEnvironmentalProfessional.html)

Final Recommendations Letter Final Recommendations Letter (http://www.apeg.bc.ca/aboutus/cs/contam-sites.html)(http://www.apeg.bc.ca/aboutus/cs/contam-sites.html)

Draft Framework Document Draft Framework Document (http://www.apeg.bc.ca/aboutus/cs/contam-sites.html)(http://www.apeg.bc.ca/aboutus/cs/contam-sites.html)


LEP Development – Framework LEP Development – Framework DocumentDocument

Wally Braul contracted to create a Wally Braul contracted to create a framework document to guide Stage 3 work framework document to guide Stage 3 work (detailed design)(detailed design)

Currently out for public comment (due Currently out for public comment (due Sept 30)Sept 30)– Comments on interactions and basic workings Comments on interactions and basic workings

to help guide Stage 3, not fundamental aspects to help guide Stage 3, not fundamental aspects (e.g., ‘don’t like hybrid system’)(e.g., ‘don’t like hybrid system’)


LEP Development – Framework LEP Development – Framework DocumentDocument

Some suggestions to keep in mind while Some suggestions to keep in mind while reviewing the document:reviewing the document:– For non-high risk sites, interface with MWLAP will be through the For non-high risk sites, interface with MWLAP will be through the

LEP system; what are implications with respect to interactions LEP system; what are implications with respect to interactions with MWLAP today and how/where would it be incorporated? with MWLAP today and how/where would it be incorporated?

– What are implications to business transactions, and how can they What are implications to business transactions, and how can they be best addressed?be best addressed?

– How will LEP’s be engaged?How will LEP’s be engaged?

– When is it okay for an LEP to “self-assess” vs. require fresh When is it okay for an LEP to “self-assess” vs. require fresh review by others?review by others?


Framework Overview - Legal Framework Overview - Legal FoundationFoundation

Society under the BC Society Act Society under the BC Society Act determined to be best (not perfect) vehicledetermined to be best (not perfect) vehicle

Can establish principal elements Can establish principal elements (supervisory board, setting qualifications, (supervisory board, setting qualifications, administering procedures, performance and administering procedures, performance and conduct)conduct)

No viable alternative identified (considering No viable alternative identified (considering implementation timeline)implementation timeline)


Framework Overview – Framework Overview – Supervisory BoardSupervisory Board

Proposed 12 member board (11 voting)Proposed 12 member board (11 voting)– 3 eligible APEGBC members3 eligible APEGBC members

– 2 eligible BCIA members2 eligible BCIA members

– 2 eligible CAB members2 eligible CAB members

– 1 position reserved for qualified environmental 1 position reserved for qualified environmental professional not eligible for APEGBC, BCIA or CABprofessional not eligible for APEGBC, BCIA or CAB

– 1 position for an industry rep1 position for an industry rep

– 1 position for a local government rep1 position for a local government rep

– 1 position for environmental NGO group1 position for environmental NGO group

– 1 position for MWLAP (non-voting)1 position for MWLAP (non-voting)


Framework Overview – Framework Overview – Supervisory Board FunctionsSupervisory Board Functions

Everything the current RSC does, but including:Everything the current RSC does, but including:– Performance assessmentsPerformance assessments

– Public complaintsPublic complaints

– DisciplineDiscipline

– Development/implementation of practice guidelinesDevelopment/implementation of practice guidelines

– Member/prospective member education/qualificationMember/prospective member education/qualification

– Dialogue with MWLAP on possible future expansion Dialogue with MWLAP on possible future expansion of role of LEP'sof role of LEP's


Framework Overview – Society Framework Overview – Society MembershipMembership

Analogous to current requirements for Analogous to current requirements for Approved ProfessionalsApproved Professionals– Member of APEGBC, BCIA or CAB (or other Member of APEGBC, BCIA or CAB (or other

organization recognized by the Board)organization recognized by the Board)– Demonstrated practice experience in the fieldDemonstrated practice experience in the field– Successful completion of a written exam on Successful completion of a written exam on

regulatory and technical aspectsregulatory and technical aspects– Acceptance by BoardAcceptance by Board


Framework Overview – Types of Framework Overview – Types of LEP'sLEP's

Recognizing the importance of an option Recognizing the importance of an option for risk assessment in management of for risk assessment in management of contaminated sites, there must be LEP's contaminated sites, there must be LEP's with expertise in this areawith expertise in this area– LEP's will be able to be qualified technically in LEP's will be able to be qualified technically in

the area of risk assessment and/or numerical the area of risk assessment and/or numerical assessmentassessment


Framework Overview – Types of Framework Overview – Types of LEP'sLEP's

Considered the option of having distinct Considered the option of having distinct recognisable categories of LEP's, but the recognisable categories of LEP's, but the draft framework favours a ‘lead LEP’ draft framework favours a ‘lead LEP’ approachapproach– single point of contact/contract for Ownerssingle point of contact/contract for Owners– avoid potential issues pertaining to perceived avoid potential issues pertaining to perceived

gaps or overlapping areas of responsibilitygaps or overlapping areas of responsibility– lead LEP will be required to seek input from lead LEP will be required to seek input from

LEP's qualified in area of expertise required.LEP's qualified in area of expertise required.


Framework Overview – Types of Framework Overview – Types of LEP ReviewsLEP Reviews

Assessment of own work (“Self Assessment”) vs. Assessment of own work (“Self Assessment”) vs. fresh review by another LEPfresh review by another LEP– ‘‘Self assessment’ refers to LEP Joe/Jane planning the Self assessment’ refers to LEP Joe/Jane planning the

work, writing the report, then submitting it directly to work, writing the report, then submitting it directly to MWLAP for issuance of an instrument with no further MWLAP for issuance of an instrument with no further reviewreview

– ‘‘Fresh review’ refers to LEP Joe/Jane planning the Fresh review’ refers to LEP Joe/Jane planning the work, writing the report, then giving it to the LEP in an work, writing the report, then giving it to the LEP in an office or company next door for their review and office or company next door for their review and ultimately that LEP makes the submission to MWLAPultimately that LEP makes the submission to MWLAP


Framework Overview – Types of Framework Overview – Types of LEP ReviewsLEP Reviews

Recommendation is a combination of both, Recommendation is a combination of both, with line between to be determined in Stage with line between to be determined in Stage 3 and reviewed periodically by Board3 and reviewed periodically by Board

Suggested that self assessment be allowed Suggested that self assessment be allowed in situations where environmental and in situations where environmental and liability implications are relatively low, and liability implications are relatively low, and fresh review in other circumstancesfresh review in other circumstances– e.g., Determination vs. impacts extending onto e.g., Determination vs. impacts extending onto

neighbouring propertiesneighbouring properties


Framework Overview – QA/QCFramework Overview – QA/QC

QC achieved by development of Practice QC achieved by development of Practice GuidelinesGuidelines– e.g., type of review, conflict of interest, e.g., type of review, conflict of interest,

involvement of others, etc.involvement of others, etc. QA achieved by Performance AssessmentsQA achieved by Performance Assessments

– Need to develop clear framework for what will Need to develop clear framework for what will be assessed, and consider how completed, by be assessed, and consider how completed, by who, frequency, timelines, differing who, frequency, timelines, differing professional opinions and conflict resolutionprofessional opinions and conflict resolution


Framework Overview – Public Framework Overview – Public Complaints/DisciplineComplaints/Discipline

It is not expected this to be a highlight It is not expected this to be a highlight feature of the new system, but need to feature of the new system, but need to ensure that the appropriate mechanisms are ensure that the appropriate mechanisms are in placein place


Framework Overview – LiabilityFramework Overview – Liability

This is a significant issue for practitionersThis is a significant issue for practitioners– Potential issues include 3Potential issues include 3rdrd party reliance, party reliance,

availability/affordability of insurance availability/affordability of insurance (particularly for small practices)(particularly for small practices)

Also a concern for future Board membersAlso a concern for future Board members


Framework Overview – LiabilityFramework Overview – Liability

Should be an important area of attention for Should be an important area of attention for Stakeholders alsoStakeholders also

Draft framework recommends that current Draft framework recommends that current requirement for $2M coverage be dropped, and requirement for $2M coverage be dropped, and replaced by mandatory disclosure to clientsreplaced by mandatory disclosure to clients

More analysis required, but initial protection More analysis required, but initial protection likely by combination of insurance (omnibus?), likely by combination of insurance (omnibus?), and mandatory(?) contract languageand mandatory(?) contract language


Framework Overview – FinanceFramework Overview – Finance

Need to predict annual budgetsNeed to predict annual budgets Need to establish interaction mechanics for cash Need to establish interaction mechanics for cash

flow/financing/sharingflow/financing/sharing Inputs may include: Inputs may include:

– LEP membership fees and exam fees (LEP Board)LEP membership fees and exam fees (LEP Board)– Operating grants, fees for contaminated sites services Operating grants, fees for contaminated sites services

(MWLAP)(MWLAP) Outputs may include:Outputs may include:

– Salaries (administrator/executive), Board expenses, Salaries (administrator/executive), Board expenses, exam development, performance assessments, exam development, performance assessments, accounting and legal support, office and overheadaccounting and legal support, office and overhead


LEP DevelopmentLEP DevelopmentNext StepsNext Steps

Broadly speaking, the next steps fall into one of Broadly speaking, the next steps fall into one of four categoriesfour categories

1.1. Establishment of the society and bylaws, groundwork for first Establishment of the society and bylaws, groundwork for first Board and rollover of existing RPE’sBoard and rollover of existing RPE’s

2.2. Development of guidelines for practice, performance assessmentDevelopment of guidelines for practice, performance assessment

3.3. Development of written exams and establishment of Development of written exams and establishment of requalification/renewal processrequalification/renewal process

4.4. Establishment of a financial model – first year budget, 3 to 5 Establishment of a financial model – first year budget, 3 to 5 year budget forecast, the mechanics of money in/money out, etc.year budget forecast, the mechanics of money in/money out, etc.

In addition, issues related to liability and/or In addition, issues related to liability and/or insurance needs to be addressedinsurance needs to be addressed


LEP DevelopmentLEP DevelopmentNext StepsNext Steps

Comment period ends Sept 30; a revised draft will Comment period ends Sept 30; a revised draft will be reviewed by RSC mid-October(ish) with target be reviewed by RSC mid-October(ish) with target to finalize document and issue to Director at end to finalize document and issue to Director at end of October(ish); goal for implementation is still of October(ish); goal for implementation is still April 1, 2005April 1, 2005

Because of aggressive time line for Because of aggressive time line for implementation, the RSC intends to proceed with implementation, the RSC intends to proceed with detailed development of some components of the detailed development of some components of the framework (i.e., Stage 3) concurrently with review framework (i.e., Stage 3) concurrently with review of comments received on the framework (e.g., of comments received on the framework (e.g., establishment of society)establishment of society)

development of a new “licensed” environmental professional (lep) system in bc

Documents

sites eligible

new system

new lep system

new review system

contaminated siteslep

mwlap terminology

director mwlap

true standalone system