Re: [CPEO-BIF] EPA's Inspector General reviews All Appropriate Inquiries reports

It is true that the clients are driving the prices down but the consultants have created this mess with this business model. The clients are taking advantage of this. We need the government to put in a hard floor on who can do these reports. Perhaps a little more prescriptive requirements,,,,

Schnapf Law Offices 
55 East 87th Street, Ste. 8B
New York, NY 10128
212-756-2205 (p) 
646-468-8483 (c)
Larry@SchnapfLaw.com
http://www.SchnapfLaw.com/

Named to Chambers USA 2009-10 Client Guide of America?s Leading Lawyers for Business.

AV® Preeminent Rating from Martindale-Hubbell

Listed in 2010 New York Super Lawyers-Metro Edition

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Kubal [mailto:jerry@kubalassoc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 04:24 PM
To: larry@schnapflaw.com
Cc: 'Trilling, Barry', lsiegel@cpeo.org, 'Brownfields Internet Forum'
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] EPA's Inspector General reviews All Appropriate Inquiries reports

_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org

These have become a commodity and are priced accordingly. Phase I reports cannot be done properly for the amount of money paid to conduct them. Expenses eat up more than half the cost and that only leaves time for junior, lower billiability rate staff to spend any time on interpretation.  These things are the equivalent of a loss leader. When you have junior staff do the work and a P.G. takes 15 minutes to review and sign them, there is a tendency to turn these into marketing reports by finding something that will result in a Phase II follow-on so some of the actual cost incurred can be recovered. We won't do these types of investigations unless they're for an existing client that understands what it takes to do one properly and is willing to pay accordingly. Unfortunately, the big consumer of these reports is typically a financial institution that will pick the low bidder and then require ridiculous amounts of professional liability insurance to cover their rear ends because they know a certain number of these are going to be substandard. Same sorry state of affairs in the UST business. If you think AAI's are bad, pick up and read a typical UST report some day. That will really scare you. I get tired of hearing all the complaints about the shoddy work of consultants when in most cases it's the end user that drives the quality of the work product. When it's all said and done, you typically get what you pay for. Professional services and work products aren't exempt from this. General Electric's policy to reverse auction professional services is probably one of the most degrading experiences you can ever be subjected to as a consultant. And, over and over, they're getting exactly what they don't pay for. Jerry E. Kubal, P.G. Kubal & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 273210 Tampa, FL  33688-3210 813-265-2338 (Office) 813-503-6493 (Cell) On Feb 15, 2011, at 3:33 PM, larry@schnapflaw.com wrote: I could speak hours on the volume of crappy and substandard phase 1 reports that are produced each year by so-called "commodity shops". They typically miss historical contamination and prior uses, nearby plumes that may be impacting a site, vapor intrusion, old tanks. existence of prior bombing ranges- the list goes on.   The problem was always there but EPA's AAI facilitated this mess by diluting the definition of EP. We should have mandatory state licensing for EPs who could then lose their licenses if they continue to crank out (some would say spit out) these terrible phase 1 reports.   Larry  Schnapf Law Offices  55 East 87th Street, Ste. 8B New York, NY 10128 212-756-2205 (p)  646-468-8483 (c) Larry@SchnapfLaw.com http://www.SchnapfLaw.com/ Named to Chambers USA 2009-10 Client Guide of America?s Leading Lawyers for Business. AV® Preeminent Rating from Martindale-Hubbell Listed in 2010 New York Super Lawyers-Metro Edition   -----Original Message----- From: Trilling, Barry [mailto:BTrilling@wiggin.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 02:50 PM To: lsiegel@cpeo.org, 'Brownfields Internet Forum' Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] EPA's Inspector General reviews All Appropriate Inquiries reports Having seen this curse spread in both the public and private sectors, I favor the enactment of legislation or promulgation of regulation that will give EPA and state agencies the authority to issue monetary sanctions and/or lift the license to practice of so-called environmental professionals who certify compliance with the regulatory standard when it is far from the truth to do so. Corporate officials who certify statements submitted to EPA are subject to criminal penalties; these folks who louse up the process for everyone else and endanger human health and the environment by doing so should also be subject to punishment. Barry J. Trilling  W I G G I N  A N D  D A N A -----Original Message----- From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org [mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Lenny Siegel Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:24 PM To: Brownfields Internet Forum Subject: [CPEO-BIF] EPA's Inspector General reviews All Appropriate Inquiries reports [This new reports finds that EPA does not normally review All Appropriate Inquiries reports submitted by Brownfields Assessment grantees, and that those reports often do not meet the legal requirements under the AAI rule. What can and should be done to improve the quality of those reports? What can and should be done to ensure that AAI reports prepared for other purposes meet the legal requirements? Does anyone have evidence of serious on-the-ground consequences of poor AAI documentation?- LS] EPA Must Implement Controls to Ensure Proper Investigations Are Conducted at Brownfields Sites U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General Report No. 11-P-0107 February 14, 2011 At a Glance What We Found EPA does not review AAI [All Appropriate Inquiries] reports submitted by grantees to assure that they comply with federal requirements. Rather, EPA has relied on the environmental professional conducting the AAI to self-certify that requirements are met. Of the 35 AAI reports we reviewed, from three EPA regions, none contained all the required documentation elements. This occurred because the Agency does not have management controls requiring EPA project officers to conduct oversight of AAI reports. Management controls regarding EPA oversight of Brownfields grants funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) are also missing. EPA has issued specific guidance and management controls for ARRA grant activities. However, the guidance and controls do not address oversight of AAI reports. Because of EPA's lack of oversight and reliance on environmental professionals' self-certifications, AAI investigations not meeting federal requirements may go undetected by Agency staff. The Office of Inspector General found instances of noncompliance that were not detected by Agency staff. Improper AAI investigations introduce risk that the environmental conditions of a property have not been properly or adequately assessed, which may lead to improper decisions about appropriate uses of brownfields properties. Ultimately, threats to human health and the environment could go unrecognized. Noncompliant AAI investigations may result in future grant denials and possible government reimbursement. The AAI reports the OIG reviewed were generated from $2.14 million in grant awards. If conditions merit, EPA is authorized to take back funds from noncompliant grantees. The OIG questions the value of the reports we reviewed. What We Recommend We recommend that EPA establish accountability for compliant AAI reports, to include those conducted under ARRA Brownfields grants; develop a plan to review AAI reports to determine the reports' compliance with AAI documentation requirements; and establish criteria to determine whether noncompliant grantees should return federal grant money. The Agency did not clearly agree or disagree with OIG recommendations. In its final response to the report, the Agency needs to agree or disagree with recommendations and, as appropriate, provide a corrective action plan to address the recommendations. To download the full 19-page 140 KB report, go to http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2011/20110214-11-P-0107.pdf -- Lenny Siegel Executive Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight a project of the Pacific Studies Center 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/961-8918 http://www.cpeo.org/ _______________________________________________ Brownfields mailing list Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org ********************************************************************** This transmittal is intended for a particular addressee(s). It may constitute a confidential attorney-client communication. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, copying or distribution or dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you suspect that you have received this transmittal in error, please notify Wiggin and Dana immediately at 203-498-4400, or by email, reply to the sender and delete the transmittal and any attachments. Neither this message nor the documents attached to this message are encrypted. ********************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Brownfields mailing list Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org _______________________________________________ Brownfields mailing list Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org