|
I strongly agree with Jerry. When the client
selects low bid they typically what they paid for.
________________________________________________
Richard W. Chapin,
M.S., P.E., BCEE
President, Chapin Engineering
27 Quincy Road, Basking
Ridge, NJ 07920
908-647-8407 908 625 5697 (cell) 908-647-6959
(fax)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 4:24
PM
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] EPA's Inspector
General reviews All AppropriateInquiries 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.
Jerry E. Kubal, P.G.
Kubal & Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 273210
Tampa, FL 33688-3210
813-265-2338 (Office)
813-503-6493 (Cell)
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
_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing
list
Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org
|