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

["Larry Schnapf" <larry@schnapflaw.com>]

I agree with Lenny. What we have is a situation where EPA is issuing funds
to state brownfield programs without assuring the quality of the work. The
state agencies, in turn, seem motivated to hand out the money and also are
not vetting the quality of the work. 

The OIG report by its very nature could not opine on the quality of the
assessments but could only really review the documentation portion of the
work. And on that score, the 35 reported batted a fat o for 35! 

I can only wonder about the underlying qualify of those reports. The
Shenadoah LLC v Green Mountain Power case where a phase 1 funded by
brownfield assessment grant performed on an old mill only flagged asbestos
and lead-based paint and completely missed PCB/oil contamination is the
poster child for what is wrong.

Lawrence Schnapf
Schnapf Law Office
55 East 87th Street #8B
New York, New York 10128
212-756-2205 (p)
212-646-8483 (c)
Larry@SchnapfLaw.com
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
 
Blog: Visit Schnapf Judgment on the commonground community at
http://commonground.edrnet.com/resources/9d51c3f88e/summary
 
 
Linked-In Blog: Environmental Issues in Business Transactions
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?mostPopular=&gid=3607181

-----Original Message-----
From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org
[mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Lenny Siegel
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 5:41 PM
To: Brownfields Internet Forum
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] EPA's Inspector General reviews All Appropriate
Inquiries reports

This is an important subject. Most of the usual suspects have already 
chimed in. I invite other members of this list to join the discussion. I 
would particularly like to hear from government officials. Since many 
agencies discourage statements that might be misinterpreted as official, 
I am willing to anonymize submissions.

Personally, I don't think the solution lies in paying environmental 
professionals more or restricting who might conduct a Phase One. Those 
might be attractive options in their own right.

But I believe we have to recognize that environmental protection is 
inherently a government function. It is not inherently protective of 
public health and the environment to allow private consultants, no 
matter how qualified and how well paid, to conduct environmental 
assessments that are questioned only if someone goes to court down the road.

The lesson of the Inspector General's report is that government 
officials, directly accountable to the public, need to oversee site 
assessments. It means that assessments should routinely be made 
available to the public, and that environmental regulators should check 
all of them against a checklist - as the Inspector General's office did. 
A percentage should be fully audited. To me, this is the best way to 
ensure quality.

Lenny

-- 


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
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.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