Comments
Here is a good report to read more on this subject:
I just received a few copies of Mr. Stossel's new book, No They Can't, and see that the charts are on pages 84 and 85. I highly recommend the book to everyone.
Another common one: "Borrowing is the key the success."
We've won many governmetn contracts. My wife's relatives in Europe once asked us who we had to pay off to get them. They were surprised when we told them nobody, just propose to provide superior services at superior prices.
The high altitude aerials are the least useful historic source for obtaining anything beyond a basic indication of land use (farm, residential, industrial). Some of the old ones taken at low altitude by private companies and the federal government are wonderful.
Yes, and it is probable that EPA is also unconstitutional.
Consider the lead lead-based paint regulation, RRP. It is driving work to the "contractors" who will create the greatest exposures and most lead hazards. Good contractors are placed between the rock of heavy fines, and the hard places of losing work due to compliance costs. Owners, the ones who should be responsible for their buildings, are free to avoid inspections and hire whoever is cheap.
We have a third party reliance contract at the end of our Phase I reports. They sign it and pay the fee, or no reliance. We'd simply reject such a request, or tell them the cost and ask if they want to pay it.
How much do you want to miss, or risk missing?
I've seen well-educated and diligent non-EPs with significant Phase I experience miss significant things (USTs).
I've also seen consultants fail to obtain the fire insurance maps, and miss significant things. One I remember is a site which was a power plant, with a vehicle maintenance facility on the subject property. It would greatly help if EDR would provide free online searches for coverage, as we all know that they must have automated the coverage search.
Different wording, but we cover those areas. For Phase Is, we also include a section at the end of the report which contains a contract which third parties wanting to rely on the report must sign (and pay a fee). We also include a clause in our contracts that we may mention any other items not in the scope which we observe. This is to rpevent them from suing us for telling them about something they do not want to know about, especially in the course of trying to sell them consulting services to deal with such a non-scope item.
Specifically, wastes from X-Ray photo processing and clarifiers (including small ones under sinks).
If the project also includes asbestos, lead, and miscellaneous toxic materials surveys, there could be lead-lined rooms. There may be layers of floor tile with plywood between them. Stucco could cover old wood siding.
- posted November 16, 2011 in Environmental Home Health
Perspective is important. The tower probably transmits 200 watts, but the power drops rapidly with distance. The hand-held phone, although low power, is held right on the head of the user.
It is odd that so many people want to use cell phones and have good coverage, yet do not want antennas. They can't have it both ways.
" everyone would probably get sued" - Again, not if they have a good contract. Ours contains a requirement that we first be allowed to correct any claimed deficiency, then a requirement for binding arbitration. It also references and includes by reference E1527. Finally, all of our Phase I reports contain this paragraph: "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment reports are essentially a collection of information obtained from documents, files, observations and investigations of certain issues. Properties with seemingly low potential for environmental concerns may in fact be highly polluted and/or have high environmental liability, while properties with seemingly high potential for environmental concerns may in fact be clean and free of environmental liabilities. This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was not intended to wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions (as defined in ASTM E1527) in connection with the subject property. It was intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property, within reasonable limits of time and cost."
It may well be that the $2,300 guys are not actually doing the work, and/or have non certified people. I've got some recent asbestos & lead survey reports from one such outfit in southern California which show no evidence that they had anyone certified do the work, no signatures, very few samples, no photos, and missing many other things required by regulations.
Your client might appreciate some help in getting rid of those low-ballers.
You can be efficient and have low overhead, so it is possible to offer top quality and top vale. My company has won many competitive bid contracts. The first one we won many years ago, the top bid was 15 times our price, yet we made good money and were quite happy to haev the contract.
I started my company 20 years ago, and from the start we sought sub-consulting work from companies lacking the expertise in specialties such as asbestos and lead, or having overhead too high to provide such services in-house. The percentage of our business which is sub-work has declined, but overall, it is probably 25%.
The "continuing education" for asbestos in California is indeed getting very tiresome. Three full days every year since 1992, even though the last real excitment was the revision of the OSHA regulations many eyars ago! Much of the "continuing education" I see offered by associations are ust money makers for the association and venues they rent.
The discussion over licenses/certifications goes way back in the history os the USA. As with many things, too many people are willing to give up some of their freedom for promises that they will not have to expend much effort seeking well-qualified people. Yet, few licenses or certifications work that way. Consultants, attorneys, doctors, plumbers, real estate agents, and so forth are far from equal, and there are incompetent and corrupt people in all of the licensed fields.
It is very difficult to imagine why anyone would want a tube-based XRF with an enormously wide inconslusive range. Note that the plus or minus range shown on the Niton machines we use is not an inconclusive range, just the reading variability at the test interval. If the machine is kept on the spot longer, the reading variability will be reduced. With the threshold at 1.0 mg/cm2, there is rarely a need to waste time obtaining longer duration readings. In areas with lower thresholds, we need more time to perform the surveys.