The solution I propose can work if consultants with backbone,
such as Jerry appears to be, refuse to provide shoddy work. Then enforce
against those who do and the users who demand the commodity price will be
forced to pay for a quality product.
Barry J. Trilling
W I G G I N A N D
D A N A
From: Jerry Kubal
[mailto:jerry@kubalassoc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 4:25 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
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.
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.
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
**********************************************************************
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.
**********************************************************************
|