|
Peter,
Not speaking for Barry but I can say that the recourse is to sue the consultants which is usually not a preferred outcome for clients. There have been some glaring misses the past year that have resulted in litigation. I have discussed many of these on my blog.
When I review reports, I am constantly having to ask the consultants to do additional work or follow-up. Of course, clients frequently do have lawyers get involved in the AAI process even though this is partially a legal exercise.
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: Peter Strauss [mailto:petestrauss1@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 04:01 PM
To: 'Trilling, Barry'
Cc: 'Brownfields Internet Forum'
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] EPA's Inspector General reviews All Appropriate Inquiries reports
Barry: You're statement sounds a bit strong. The IG's report was aimed at EPA: not having a system in place to review and/or verify the findings of the EPs. Have you had experience when Certified Environmental Professions (EP) have wrongly certified properties to be in compliance? As a lawyer, what have you done when you find this is the case? What Is the legal recourse for parties that believe that a site was wrongly-certified? For full disclosure, I am a lapsed Certified Environmental Professional - I let my CA certification go because I don't prepare AAI-type reports. Peter Strauss On Feb 15, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Trilling, Barry wrote: > 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
_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org
|