Our September

AAI Alert identified five key areas of the AAI rule for EPs to pay particular attention to when the long-awaited rule was promulgated. Now that the cloud of uncertainty about how EPA would respond to public comments has been replaced with the certainty of a final rule, below is a summary of EPA’s language in each of these key areas.

During the public comment period for the draft AAI rule, consultants raised objections to a number of areas, including the definition of “environmental professional,” the cost impacts of the regulation, a perceived lack of clarity on the significance of data gaps, as well as myriad other issues. The final rule itself, as well as the preamble which will address EPA’s response to the public comments, will undoubtedly be lengthy. Below is a list of five key areas of the rule that are likely to be of immediate interest to consultants when the AAI rule becomes public.

Although the proposed AAI rule allows individuals who do not meet the definition of “environmental professional” (EP) to contribute to a Phase I ESA under the “direct supervision or responsible charge” of a qualified EP, EPA surprised many consultants by including several strong recommendations in the proposed rule’s preamble that single out the site visit as the one critical element of AAI that requires the participation of an experienced EP.  For some firms, following EPA’s strong recommendation and sending only staff members who meet the EP definition to conduct site reconnaissance could be a significant departure from current business practice. On average, 23% of consultants cited in EDR’s 2005 Environmental Site Assessment Industry Benchmark Report indicated that the site visit is typically not conducted by someone with the qualifications in EPA’s proposed EP definition. So, for roughly one in four firms, EPA’s recommendation could affect staffing decisions—and possibly billing rates.