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

1. DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW “LICENSED” ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL (LEP) SYSTEM IN BC Roster Steering Committee/ LEP Subcommittee MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

2. Background - Understanding Terminology • Professional Expert (1999) = Approved Professional (2004) à SEP?? (2005) • “Professional Experts” and “Approved Professionals” are the same • currently appointed by the Director (MWLAP) to a “Roster” maintained by MWLAP • The Roster is not independent of MWLAP; governance is through the Roster Steering Committee (RSC), which is also appointed by MWLAP (until recently) • Under the future system “Approved Professionals” will not be appointed by MWLAP MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

3. Background - Understanding Terminology • “LEP” is an interim term that has become common in BC in reference to a new review system being developed for contaminated sites • “LEP” originates from the Minister’s Advisory Panel report that recommended a “stand-alone and independent system of Licensed Environmental Professionals” MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

4. Background - Understanding Terminology • The term “LEP” is inaccurate; the system being put forward is not a stand-alone system, nor will the professionals be “licensed” in that sense • nevertheless, for purposes of this presentation, will continue to use “LEP” for continuity, but at some point it will change MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

5. Background - Understanding Terminology • “Hybrid System” – proposed system is not a true standalone system as recommended in the Panel Report, but will be much more independent than the current Roster system MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

6. Background - Understanding Terminology • The scope of work for the new LEP system is similar to that currently in place today, however will also include risk managed sites • LEP’s will make recommendations to MWLAP, with respect to non-high risk sites, who will then go through the administrative process of issuing the regulatory instruments • Quality control/assurance (QA/QC) will be managed within the new system by the Board, not MWLAP as it currently is MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

7. Background - Understanding Terminology • Audit (former MWLAP terminology) = Quality Review (current terminology by MWLAP) = Performance Assessment (LEP Framework Document) • A percentage of the Roster submissions (currently 10%) randomly selected for detailed technical and administrative review by MWLAP (now also RSC) • The primary means of achieving QA/QC • Formerly disciplinary in nature, present emphasis is on education (consistent with future direction also) MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

8. Background - Understanding Terminology • Options for Proponents: • Ministry Review • As of July 15, no longer available for sites eligible for Roster or External reviews (defined by “Protocol 6”) • External Review • As of Nov 1, this option will no longer be available for sites eligible for Roster review • Roster Review • As of Nov 1, will be the only option for eligible sites • In the future, will be the only option for “non-high risk” sites MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

9. LEP Development Timeline MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

10. LEP Development Input • LEP Advisory Group (representatives of industry stakeholders – CPPI, BCEIA, COFI, UDI, UBCM, Mining, Utilities, Cement Association of Canada, Insurance Bureau of Canada) • Public Opinion Survey (input received from MWLAP, roster, owners, practitioners, etc.) • Directly from RSC/Roster Approved Professionals • Roundtable (representatives from LEP AG, LEPSC, UBCM, Environment Canada, BCIA, CAB, SAB, APEGBC, RSC) • Public Review and Comment MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

11. LEP DevelopmentKey Documents • Considerations Document (http://www.apeg.bc.ca/aboutus/cs/documents/CSRSC-Report-WallysFinal.pdf) • Results of Survey (http://www.apeg.bc.ca/aboutus/cs/LicensedEnvironmentalProfessional.html) • Final Recommendations Letter (http://www.apeg.bc.ca/aboutus/cs/contam-sites.html) • Draft Framework Document (http://www.apeg.bc.ca/aboutus/cs/contam-sites.html) MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

12. LEP Development – Framework Document • Wally Braul contracted to create a framework document to guide Stage 3 work (detailed design) • Currently out for public comment (due Sept 30) • Comments on interactions and basic workings to help guide Stage 3, not fundamental aspects (e.g., ‘don’t like hybrid system’) MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

13. LEP Development – Framework Document • Some suggestions to keep in mind while reviewing the document: • For non-high risk sites, interface with MWLAP will be through the LEP system; what are implications with respect to interactions with MWLAP today and how/where would it be incorporated? • What are implications to business transactions, and how can they be best addressed? • How will LEP’s be engaged? • When is it okay for an LEP to “self-assess” vs. require fresh review by others? MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

14. Framework Overview - Legal Foundation • Society under the BC Society Act determined to be best (not perfect) vehicle • Can establish principal elements (supervisory board, setting qualifications, administering procedures, performance and conduct) • No viable alternative identified (considering implementation timeline) MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

15. Framework Overview – Supervisory Board • Proposed 12 member board (11 voting) • 3 eligible APEGBC members • 2 eligible BCIA members • 2 eligible CAB members • 1 position reserved for qualified environmental professional not eligible for APEGBC, BCIA or CAB • 1 position for an industry rep • 1 position for a local government rep • 1 position for environmental NGO group • 1 position for MWLAP (non-voting) MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

16. Framework Overview – Supervisory Board Functions • Everything the current RSC does, but including: • Performance assessments • Public complaints • Discipline • Development/implementation of practice guidelines • Member/prospective member education/qualification • Dialogue with MWLAP on possible future expansion of role of LEP's MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

17. Framework Overview – Society Membership • Analogous to current requirements for Approved Professionals • Member of APEGBC, BCIA or CAB (or other organization recognized by the Board) • Demonstrated practice experience in the field • Successful completion of a written exam on regulatory and technical aspects • Acceptance by Board MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

18. Framework Overview – Types of LEP's • Recognizing the importance of an option for risk assessment in management of contaminated sites, there must be LEP's with expertise in this area • LEP's will be able to be qualified technically in the area of risk assessment and/or numerical assessment MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

19. Framework Overview – Types of LEP's • Considered the option of having distinct recognisable categories of LEP's, but the draft framework favours a ‘lead LEP’ approach • single point of contact/contract for Owners • avoid potential issues pertaining to perceived gaps or overlapping areas of responsibility • lead LEP will be required to seek input from LEP's qualified in area of expertise required. MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

20. Framework Overview – Types of LEP Reviews • Assessment of own work (“Self Assessment”) vs. fresh review by another LEP • ‘Self assessment’ refers to LEP Joe/Jane planning the work, writing the report, then submitting it directly to MWLAP for issuance of an instrument with no further review • ‘Fresh review’ refers to LEP Joe/Jane planning the work, writing the report, then giving it to the LEP in an office or company next door for their review and ultimately that LEP makes the submission to MWLAP MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

21. Framework Overview – Types of LEP Reviews • Recommendation is a combination of both, with line between to be determined in Stage 3 and reviewed periodically by Board • Suggested that self assessment be allowed in situations where environmental and liability implications are relatively low, and fresh review in other circumstances • e.g., Determination vs. impacts extending onto neighbouring properties MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

22. Framework Overview – QA/QC • QC achieved by development of Practice Guidelines • e.g., type of review, conflict of interest, involvement of others, etc. • QA achieved by Performance Assessments • Need to develop clear framework for what will be assessed, and consider how completed, by who, frequency, timelines, differing professional opinions and conflict resolution MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

23. Framework Overview – Public Complaints/Discipline • It is not expected this to be a highlight feature of the new system, but need to ensure that the appropriate mechanisms are in place MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

24. Framework Overview – Liability • This is a significant issue for practitioners • Potential issues include 3rd party reliance, availability/affordability of insurance (particularly for small practices) • Also a concern for future Board members MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

25. Framework Overview – Liability • Should be an important area of attention for Stakeholders also • Draft framework recommends that current requirement for $2M coverage be dropped, and replaced by mandatory disclosure to clients • More analysis required, but initial protection likely by combination of insurance (omnibus?), and mandatory(?) contract language MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

26. Framework Overview – Finance • Need to predict annual budgets • Need to establish interaction mechanics for cash flow/financing/sharing • Inputs may include: • LEP membership fees and exam fees (LEP Board) • Operating grants, fees for contaminated sites services (MWLAP) • Outputs may include: • Salaries (administrator/executive), Board expenses, exam development, performance assessments, accounting and legal support, office and overhead MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

27. LEP DevelopmentNext Steps • Broadly speaking, the next steps fall into one of four categories • Establishment of the society and bylaws, groundwork for first Board and rollover of existing RPE’s • Development of guidelines for practice, performance assessment • Development of written exams and establishment of requalification/renewal process • Establishment of a financial model – first year budget, 3 to 5 year budget forecast, the mechanics of money in/money out, etc. • In addition, issues related to liability and/or insurance needs to be addressed MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004

28. LEP DevelopmentNext Steps • Comment period ends Sept 30; a revised draft will be reviewed by RSC mid-October(ish) with target to finalize document and issue to Director at end of October(ish); goal for implementation is still April 1, 2005 • Because of aggressive time line for implementation, the RSC intends to proceed with detailed development of some components of the framework (i.e., Stage 3) concurrently with review of comments received on the framework (e.g., establishment of society) MWLAP Contaminated Sites Workshop - September 28, 2004