Interesting timing for your post, Joe.

Many people probably know that the ASTM by-laws have, until recently, prohibited certifications standards. I attended the ASTM meetings in April and the chairman ASTM's board of directors came to the E50 Executive Committee meeting to announce that the board had recently voted to allow certification standards (of both products and personnel) within ASTM. They made this decision when a committee that writes standards on toy safety lobbied to create a safety certification for plastic toys.

ASTM is going into this new area with some hesitation and the chairman let us know that they would not be pursuing certification programs proactively, but has made the change at the request of its members and to compete with other standard writing organizations that already allow for certification standards.  It was also noted that ASTM would not do the certification itself; instead it would work with third parties to do the actual testing of products/personnel. (In the toy safety example, ASTM will not keep plastic experts on their staff to do the analysis of the toys, they will partner with firms that already have this type of expertise.)

In light of this development, the E1527 task group discussed the possibility of eventually creating an EP certification process, but there were a lot of reservations, one of the biggest being cost.

It makes sense for ASTM to be the place where this certification happens, if it ever does happen. But I wonder if the industry would accept this. ASTM is a consensus organization, and I'm sure this would be an EXTREMELY hard standard to gain consensus on. I also wonder if the user community would appreciate certification process or if they'd be upset with the increased price in Phase Is that would likely result. What do you think?

Should be interesting to see where this goes!

There is already at least one national credentialing organization, the National Registry of Environmental Professionals (NREP), which offers a variety of certifications in various environmental fields, and one specifically tied to Phase I ESA's. Their certifications typically cost around $750 and include a closed book examination of at least a couple of hundred questions. If ASTM gets serious about this issue, and I am not at all sure ASTM should be in the business of certifying people, they should at least seek some type of continuity with NREP's certification.

I've been conducting Phase I and II ESA's for over twenty years and it is my firm belief that on the job training is the best classroom. Assuming you've got a bright individual (one who learns quickly and is self motivated), no more than sixteen hours of class room time should be sufficient to begin working them in the field next to a seasoned professional. Secondly, so much of our work involves intuitive thinking, that individual should have that character trait as well. Unlike mechanical engineering, for instance, where one can plug numbers into formulas to get results, environmental consulting frequently required "out of the box" thinking (and I am not bashing engineers here - I love engineers because they have made my world safer and full of conveniences). What I am trying to say is that the apprentice time requirement is critical to becoming a better than good EP.

The only real positive I came up with in thinking about this is that ASTM could get the jump on the EPA, but then I also thought that same thing about the well written ASTM Standard Practice E-1527-05. Had not a lot of members of ASTM and others raised hell, we would have had a standard written primarily by a cadre of academics who knew nothing of environmental site assessments.

I participated in development of the ASTM PCA standard, and am participating in the discussions of the revision of E1527.  Many without a science/geology degree are very good at this kind of work, proving that such as degree is not necessary.  You just can never get past the fact that many people who do PCA, Phase I, and many other types of work very well have neither such educational backgrounds or licenses. 

I agree that the EPs should be licensed. There are existing state programs that could provide a venue for licensing/certification.

For example, in California, we have the Registered Environmental Assessor (REA) certification program. Currently, this is not a skills-based entry, but requires the sign-off of two or three other REAs to testify to the applicant's ability. The application process could be modified to include a skill assessment, similar to the CA certifications for asbestos sampling, etc., with the associated application fee increased to cover the cost of testing.

I also agree that there should be a requirement for a bachelor's degree, but not necessarily a science degree or even B.S.. Many of the best EPs I work with (including myself) do not have B.S. degrees but our degrees (Environmental Studies, History, Law, etc.) have provided us with excellent training in critical thinking, historical research methods, and technical writing.

The major components of the Phase I process (e.g., site visit, interviews, records review) have little need for an advanced understanding of engineering or geology. In my experience, there have not been many assessments where the conclusions of the report hinged on the soil type at the site (for example).

I look forward to hearing more about this process.