Why Do Some Councils Require CEnvP-SC Review of Contaminated Land Reports?
If you have commissioned a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI), Detailed Site Investigation (DSI), Remediation Action Plan (RAP) or Validation Report, you may have been told that the report needs to be prepared, reviewed or endorsed by a certified contaminated land consultant.
For clients, this can raise an understandable question:
If an environmental consultant has already completed the investigation, why does another experienced consultant need to review it?
It can also introduce an additional cost that may not have been apparent at the beginning of the project.
The purpose of certified review, however, is not simply to add another signature to a report.
It provides an additional level of professional oversight from a practitioner who has demonstrated specialist competency in contaminated land assessment and management.
For some projects it is a regulatory or council requirement. In other circumstances, it can form part of a consultant's own quality assurance process.
At Confluence Environmental, we regularly have contaminated land reports reviewed by practitioners holding Certified Environmental Practitioner – Site Contamination [CEnvP(SC)] or Certified Professional Soil Scientist – Contaminated Site Assessment and Management [CPSS CSAM] certification, including on projects where certification is not expressly required.
We see specialist peer review as an important part of producing reliable, defensible work and identifying potential issues before a report reaches the client, Council or another reviewing authority.
What is CEnvP(SC) or CPSS CSAM certification?
The NSW Environment Protection Authority currently recognises two specialist contaminated land consultant certification schemes:
Certified Environmental Practitioner – Site Contamination, or CEnvP(SC); and
Certified Professional Soil Scientist – Contaminated Site Assessment and Management, or CPSS CSAM.
These are specialist certifications for experienced practitioners working in contaminated land assessment and management.
The NSW EPA describes certification schemes as a means of helping ensure that consultants managing contaminated land have the necessary skills to undertake the work. The EPA also recommends, where possible, selecting consultants certified under one of these recognised schemes.
Certification does not replace good investigation design or quality assurance.
It does, however, provide an external indication that the practitioner has demonstrated an appropriate level of specialist experience and competency.
Where did the requirement come from?
The NSW EPA first introduced its Contaminated Land Consultant Certification Policy in 2017.
The policy was developed to help improve the minimum standard of contaminated land work in NSW and provide greater confidence that contaminated sites were being appropriately assessed by suitably qualified professionals.
For contaminated land reports submitted directly to the NSW EPA under relevant provisions of the Contaminated Land Management Act framework, the requirement is clear:
reports must be prepared, or reviewed and approved, by a certified contaminated land consultant.
The EPA currently recognises the CEnvP(SC) and CPSS CSAM schemes for this purpose.
Importantly, this does not mean every contaminated land report prepared for every development application in NSW is legally required to have certified review.
Reports submitted through the planning system are generally subject to the requirements of the relevant consent authority.
However, some councils have adopted certification requirements of their own. The EPA expressly acknowledges that councils may choose to require reports to be prepared or approved by certified consultants.
Why do some councils require certified review?
Councils rely on contaminated land reports when making planning decisions about whether land is suitable, or can be made suitable, for a proposed use.
Those decisions can involve significant technical questions.
Has the consultant identified the relevant historical contamination sources?
Was the sampling program appropriate?
Were enough samples collected?
Were the correct contaminants analysed?
Does the Conceptual Site Model make sense?
Are the conclusions actually supported by the results?
Does further investigation or remediation need to occur?
A council assessing a development application needs confidence that these questions have been adequately addressed.
Some councils therefore require contaminated land reports to be prepared or reviewed by practitioners holding recognised specialist certification.
For example, the City of Newcastle's current Contaminated Land Management Technical Manual requires contaminated land reports submitted for assessment to be prepared, or reviewed and approved, by an appropriately qualified and certified environmental consultant.
Other councils have adopted similar approaches.
Requirements therefore vary depending on where the project is located, the planning pathway and the particular council or regulatory authority involved.
What does “reviewed and approved” actually mean?
This is important.
Certified review should not be treated as somebody simply reading the executive summary and attaching their name to the report.
For reports subject to the NSW EPA certification policy, the EPA has clarified that the responsibility of a certified consultant who reviews and approves another consultant's report is effectively the same as if they were a co-author or supervising author.
Their approval should not be accompanied by disclaimers attempting to avoid responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of the report.
A meaningful technical review may therefore consider matters such as:
whether the site history has been adequately researched;
whether the Conceptual Site Model is appropriate;
whether relevant Areas of Environmental Concern have been identified;
whether the sampling design addresses the identified data gaps;
whether laboratory analyses are appropriate;
whether quality assurance and quality control requirements have been addressed;
whether results have been interpreted correctly;
whether conclusions are adequately supported; and
whether recommendations are consistent with the available evidence and applicable NSW guidance.
That level of professional responsibility is one of the reasons certified review can add to the cost of a project.
Why can certified review increase the cost of a report?
Where the consultant preparing the report is not themselves appropriately certified, another specialist may need to undertake the review.
That practitioner needs enough time and information to properly understand the project and satisfy themselves that they can support the work.
For a relatively straightforward PSI, the review may be relatively limited.
For a complex DSI, RAP or Validation Report involving multiple contamination sources, extensive laboratory data, groundwater or remediation, the review can be significantly more involved.
The cost may therefore reflect review of:
the investigation strategy → sampling methodology → analytical data → Conceptual Site Model → interpretation → conclusions → final report
rather than simply the final document.
The amount of additional work can also depend heavily on the quality of the investigation being reviewed.
How can certified review actually save money?
It may seem counterintuitive that paying for an additional level of review could save money.
The value comes from identifying problems before they become more expensive problems.
Identifying data gaps before fieldwork
One of the most valuable times for an experienced specialist to review a project is before intrusive investigation begins.
If a proposed sampling program overlooks an important contamination source, discovering that after the laboratory results have been received can mean:
another site mobilisation, additional drilling or test pits, additional laboratory analysis and another round of reporting.
Reviewing the investigation strategy early provides an opportunity to identify these gaps while the field program can still be adjusted efficiently.
Reducing the likelihood of Council requesting further information
A council may request additional information where a report does not adequately address contamination risks or the relevant reporting requirements.
That can create:
report revisions → additional investigation → further review → planning delays.
No consultant can guarantee that Council will not request further information, but good technical review can reduce avoidable issues by challenging the report before it is submitted.
Avoiding retrospective certification
Another common issue arises when a report is completed and only afterwards is it discovered that Council requires certified review.
A CEnvP(SC) or CPSS CSAM practitioner cannot responsibly endorse work simply because a certification letter is required.
They need to be satisfied with the underlying investigation.
If they identify shortcomings, additional work may be necessary before they can support the conclusions.
Identifying the certification requirement at the start allows the reviewer to be incorporated into the project from the outset.
Improving the investigation scope
Experienced peer review can also identify unnecessary work.
Good review is not only about asking for more investigation.
A specialist may identify that:
existing reliable data can be used;
proposed analytical suites are unnecessarily broad;
sampling locations can address multiple objectives;
separate areas of the site can be investigated differently; or
further work can appropriately be staged based on the initial results.
The objective should always be an investigation that is proportionate to the problem being assessed.
Why Confluence uses certified specialist review
Not every contaminated land project undertaken by Confluence Environmental requires formal certified consultant endorsement.
We nevertheless regularly engage CEnvP(SC) and CPSS CSAM practitioners to review our contaminated land work as part of our technical quality assurance process.
There are several reasons for this.
Contaminated land assessment involves professional judgement. Site histories can be incomplete, sampling design can be complex and apparently simple sites can contain unexpected data gaps.
Having another experienced specialist challenge the investigation provides an additional opportunity to ask:
Have we identified the right contamination issues?
Does the sampling strategy actually answer the project questions?
Are the conclusions supported by the evidence?
Could the investigation have been designed more efficiently?
Would we be comfortable defending the approach to Council, an EPA-accredited Site Auditor or another technical reviewer?
For our clients, this provides greater confidence that the report has not simply been written and issued without meaningful senior technical scrutiny.
It is part of our approach to producing work that is clear, proportionate and technically defensible.
Should every contaminated land report be CEnvP(SC) reviewed?
Formal certified endorsement is not mandatory for every contaminated land investigation undertaken in NSW.
Whether it is required depends on the regulatory and planning circumstances of the project.
However, where:
Council policy requires certified consultant involvement;
the development consent specifically requires it;
the report is being submitted to the NSW EPA;
the site presents more complex contamination issues; or
the conclusions are likely to be subject to significant technical scrutiny,
it is sensible to establish the review requirements before the investigation begins.
Even where formal certification is not required, senior specialist peer review can still be valuable as a quality assurance measure.
Is a CEnvP(SC) review the same as a Site Audit?
No.
This distinction is important.
A certified contaminated land consultant may prepare, supervise, review or approve contaminated land consulting work.
A NSW EPA-accredited Site Auditor has a different role.
Site auditors operate under the NSW Site Auditor Scheme and independently review work undertaken by contaminated land consultants. The EPA describes the scheme as providing increased certainty in the sign-off of contaminated land assessment and remediation.
Council may require a Site Audit where, for example, it considers the information provided may be incomplete, wants independent verification that appropriate standards have been followed, or requires additional certainty because the contamination issues are complex.
Certified consultant review and a formal Site Audit are therefore not interchangeable.
What should you ask before engaging a contaminated land consultant?
If you are commissioning a PSI, DSI, RAP or other contaminated land assessment, it is worth asking:
Does the relevant council require the report to be prepared or reviewed by a certified consultant?
Does your project team include a CEnvP(SC) or CPSS CSAM practitioner?
Will the reviewer be involved before fieldwork, or only after the report has been completed?
Is certified review included in the quoted fee?
What technical quality assurance process will the report undergo before it is issued?
These questions are particularly important when comparing proposals.
A lower-priced proposal may not necessarily include the same level of technical review or certification as another proposal.
Conversely, certified review should not be used as a substitute for a well-designed investigation in the first place.
The strongest approach is to combine appropriate investigation design with meaningful technical review.
Good review should provide confidence, not bureaucracy
Contaminated land certification was introduced in NSW to help improve the standard of contaminated land work and provide greater confidence in the professionals undertaking it.
Done properly, certified review should support that objective.
For clients, the benefit is not the certification logo itself.
The value is having an experienced specialist review the assumptions, investigation design, interpretation and conclusions before those issues affect the project.
That can mean fewer avoidable revisions, a lower likelihood of unexpected additional investigation and greater confidence when the report reaches Council or another technical reviewer.
In contaminated land consulting, good quality assurance is often most valuable when it identifies an issue early—while it is still straightforward to fix.
Need a contaminated land report for a development application?
Confluence Environmental provides Preliminary Site Investigations, Detailed Site Investigations, Sampling and Analysis Quality Plans, Remediation Action Plans, validation assessments and contaminated land consulting across NSW.
Our reports undergo technical quality assurance appropriate to the complexity of the project, and we regularly involve CEnvP(SC) and CPSS CSAM practitioners in the review of our contaminated land work, including where formal certification is not expressly required.
Where a council or regulatory authority requires certified consultant endorsement, we can identify that requirement early and incorporate it into the project scope.
This allows the investigation and review process to be planned from the outset rather than addressed retrospectively after the report has been completed.
References
NSW Environment Protection Authority, Engaging a consultant – contaminated land.
NSW Environment Protection Authority, Contaminated Land Consultant Certification Policy.
NSW Environment Protection Authority, NSW Site Auditor Scheme.
City of Newcastle, Contaminated Land Management Technical Manual, July 2024.
This article provides general information only. Certification and contaminated land reporting requirements vary between projects and consent authorities. Project-specific requirements should be confirmed with the relevant council, regulator or suitably qualified contaminated land consultant.