How do you ensure the quality and credibility of environmental services and impact assessment?

This process should be governed by your intended use. The process in the US is primarily driven by regulation or at a minimum the CERCLA requirements for innocent land owner defense.

The best way to ensure credibility of any assessment is to apply the necessary standards set by your regulator religiously in carrying out your study.

Industrial activities can have an environmental impact beyond the intended scope of assessment. In initial meetings with top management, it is crucial to make this clear to define the service scope. However, the consultant must consistently alert the client about potential risks the company faces by overlooking certain assessments. Thoroughly studying the legislation, both at the federal and local levels, is essential as there might be significant risks to the company, including reputational damage due to possible protests.

Most environmental liability in the US will be governed by federal or state requirements. Sustainability is key to environmental stewardship but is not generally an environmental impact assessment benchmark.

Hopefully you are selecting a team that you as the client are not training. I would tend to disagree with this recommendation. You do need to ensure that you or your team provides access to as much historical information about site usage as is available.

Defining a multidisciplinary team for assessing environmental impacts is a key point in the process. However, depending on the project size and company scale, there might not be enough funding to hire multiple professionals. In such cases, the lead consultant should emphasize the stage where they hold the most expertise while alerting the client to the need for complementing aspects outside their competence. If possible to assemble a team with more specialists, the lead consultant's concern should be not only to assess their resumes but also their practical experience.

This proposed topic is one of the main ones after defining the scope. When the scope is defined, ideally in conjunction with the company's top management and documented, for example, in a minutes record, no one can claim ignorance. Following this definition and involvement of top management, it's now crucial to initiate a communication program within the community. This involves meeting with local leaders, holding informative sessions on weekends, and even during evenings to ensure everyone can participate. Addressing the most critical issues initially with local leaders, refining them, and then disseminating the information to the general public will significantly reduce misunderstandings.

You can not underestimate the importance of sharing your intentions with the community stake holders. Without factual information, the rumor mill will be someone's source of information which is generally wildly inaccurate.

If appropriate sources are used, an independent assessment should not be necessary. Most clients are not well versed enough in environmental assessment to verify the information developed. The best approach is to ensure that you or the current property owner or occupant is forth coming during the interview and questionnaire portion of the work.

The most direct way an owner should be involved is ensuring the intended final use matches with the assessment process to ensure the identified environmental concerns reflect the final use and are not overly protective.

From a US perspective, USEPA has recently issued guidance of PFAS. As this class of compounds has been considered emerging contaminants, you need to ensure your team is equipped to assess this class of compounds. You should also ensure you are following a prescribed process such as the widely utilized ASTM Method E1527 or SBA's preferred process if you are looking for SBA funding.