Posts
It is your identity. It is the most visible element of your brand. Let’s face it, if it were not for people wanting to look their best we would not be assessing and cleaning up all of the dry cleaners that flourished across the United States many years ago and still today.
Think about all of the items that rely upon your logo. We recently went through an exercise to catalog all of the things we have our logo placed upon. We have our logo on report covers, letterhead, business cards, building signs, marketing brochures/cut sheets, SOQ, Pens, Chip Clips, Letter openers, golf tees, mouse pads, totes, hard harts, coffee mugs, beads (yes Mardi Gras style beads), bottled water, hats, T-shirts, Polo shirts, Long sleeve shirts, Field sweatshirts, Fleece jackets, Lunch boxes, messenger bags, Flags, Company trucks and cars, etc.
A great logo can set you apart from your competitors when it grabs your attention and helps further solidify your position in a market. A poor logo can send the wrong message and confuse people about what you stand for. We (EPs) are no experts on this in this industry and we (PM and Company) learned a lot when we decided to rebrand for our 20th anniversary. I learned about logos have elements of illustrative (think Pep Boys or EBA), graphic (Apple or AEI) or a font (Ford or Partner Engineering). And then there was our logo which was illustrative (globe) and font (PM) lucky for us it was aesthetically pleasing and aligned with soil and groundwater and earth science.things we have our logo placed upon. We have our logo on report covers, letterhead, business cards, building signs, marketing brochures/cut sheets, SOQ, Pens, Chip Clips, Letter openers, golf tees, mouse pads, totes, hard harts, coffee mugs, beads (yes Mardi Gras style beads), bottled water, hats, T-shirts, Polo shirts, Long sleeve shirts, Field sweatshirts, Fleece jackets, Lunch boxes, messenger bags, flags, company trucks and cars, etc.
A logo looks like your organization and should reflect your brand and differentiates you from your competitors. It should have a distinctive and memorable style while having an integral ability to be used in all modes of marketing including social media, print, embroidery, signage, report covers and business cards. It should be scalable to print small on a tin of mints and large on a building sign. When you are really good you do not even need your name (Nike and Apple).
I look forward to the launch of our new logo at EBA's winter meeting in Santa Fe.
You may or may not (depending on your risk tolerance) have had the dreaded potential REC based upon the lack of natural gas availablity in an area with long term historic structures. I know I have this conversation at least a couple times a month on how there is potential for fuel oil USTs in this situation. Well it turns the US Census Bureau has been counting more than heads in a house.
Apparently the US Census Bureau has been tracking fuel sources for heating in each state since 1940. The attached document shows the percentage of homes using fuel oil at different times. There some interesting info in here, such as:
Overall US fuel oil/kerosene usage:
1940: 10.0%
1950: 22.6%
1960: 32.4%
1970: 26.0%
1980: 18.2%
1990: 12.2%
2000: 9.0%
There are also some high numbers in states you would never think of as high risk for fuel oil:
Florida (1960): 46.1%
Georgia (1950): 12.0%
Illinois (1960): 31.1%
Nevada (1950): 43.7%
I hopew this will help us all justify the fuel oil REC in Phase I ESAs to clients that may be skeptical, since some of the percentages are very high.
Now if we can just get EDR to include the addresses in their database we can blame it on them :).
How do you approach a change in companies you work for ? Classified ads....Monster.com......Careerbuilder......Commonground.....associations ?
Do you get those calls from the dreaded headhunter ?
We historically have posted postions at universities for entry level Phase I ESA professionals and national outlets including Commonground, LinkedIn and careerbuilder for higher level professionals. in the last couple of years and more specifically the last 6 months we have had great success with recruiters. Just like Environmental firms, not all are the same, some are better big or small and you get what you pay for.
Does is cost a little more ? Maybe. If you look at all the time you may spend with HR and senior professionals vetting good clients a recruiter can do a lot of the heavy lifting to spoon feed you some great candidates.
How do you hire or if you are looking what sources do you rely upon ?
Here are the results of two questions posed to the SBA Environmental Appeals Committee regarding the UST compliance issue with their response.
1) Is formal tightness testing by a UST contractor NOT required now by the SBA?
That is correct. Formal tightness testing by a UST contractor is not required by the SBA at loan inception under SOP 50 10 5 (D).
2) Although not implicitly stated, is a formal UST compliance inspection going to be required to ensure that there are no “leaking or otherwise defective equipment, systems, containment devices, etc.”?
The new SOP policy requires that the EP address this issue in the report. Therefore, whether a formal UST compliance inspection is required will be based upon the specific state standards.
I see two replies to no. 2. One that the EP address in report and another that is is based on specific state standards.
In Michigan, the MDEQ HMSIs (inspectors) should complete a “formal UST compliance inspection” on average every three years in the form of their Facility Inspections. If you look at their inspections, they comment on the entire system and note any violation. Violations are required to be brought into compliance within 30 days. So in theory, every UST property should have this requirement met already that has been completed by the regulatory agency. These inspections are reasonably ascertainable and should be reviewed as part of a Phase I ESA. Is this good enough ? Maybe. Confused yet ? It gets better.
I would caution relying on these inspections solely. Some of the HMSIs, for whatever reason, are not very accurate. I would say when I dig into the inspections, I find that approximately 40% of the time there are errors. Although the inspections state “no violations noted”, I frequently find compliance issues that need to be corrected.
We have a dedicated UST Compliance professional in house that feels comfortable taking these on a case by case scenario. There will be cases where the sites are new and all of the information is right in front of us, is solid and there will be no further recommendations. There will also be cases that have several deficiencies that may be discovered although the MDEQ says otherwise. Many sites should have a licensed installation and maintenance company complete this. I know of two established firms (O.W. Larson and R.W. Mercer) in the Great Lakes states that can provide this service as a third party for as low as $400-$600. For most cases we will recommend a third party inspection.
Every state and site will be a little different. I hope we do not find ASTM SBA Phase I ESAs that state the UST system is in compliance since the database does not note any violations. However, I am a realist and I have no doubt this will occur.
It is time again to change seasons and amend the SBA environmental policy.
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/SOP%2050%2010%205(D)%20(9-15-11)%20clean_0.pdf
A comprehensive summary of changes can be credited to EBA. Thanks Jeff and Tacy, the EBA and SBA representatives that particiapted on our June Panel in Vermont.
The only thing constant is change, so do not expect this to remain constant.
This news report presents a good example of why you might be concerned about an offsite concern or conversely why you do not want to purchase or finance a property with contamination migrating offsite. One of our project managers sent this around our office since he recalled listing the site mentioned as an offsite in a Phase I ESA that we recently completed.
This is the classic example to answer a client's question of "why does the bank care about that ?" As I always tell clients "take the bank out of the equation" If you were paying cash, wouldn't you want to know this and would you want to own this ?"
Is the SBA’s Records Search with Risk Assessment any match for a Phase I ESA ? Should the scope be better defined?
I am involved with a small informal group of national providers who are guilty of completing RSRAs and are talking about the SBA’s acceptance of the Risk Determination.
In short, we have boiled down some concerns related to Step 3 (RSRA); it should not stand alone, separate from the remaining “Steps of an Environmental Investigation.” The Environmental Professional (EP) should consider Step 1 (NAICS Codes) and Step 2 (Environmental Questionnaire results/Lender site visit).
As it is written today, the SOP (read staring on page 182 and the definitions) does not require the EP to consider current use, NAICS Codes or Lender-obtained information (EQ/site visit). It is assumed that the banker has vetted out which step is applicable and investigated the NAICS codes. Isolating the components compromises the Low/Elevated determination.
The SOP also leaves the choice of the historical records to the discretion of the EP. Unfortunately, there are many EPs choosing the path of least resistance, rather than choosing the most valuable historical resource.
Moving forward on a revised SOP that more clearly defines the steps and scope of the RSRA, I recommended to SBA that “tool” be fortified to;
- Require that the EP review the Lender-generated information (current use, NAICS Codes, EQ, site visit info)
- Strengthen the historic records requirement:
RSRA includes search of historical use records (i.e. aerial photography, city directories, and/or fire insurance maps) pertaining to the Property and Adjoining Properties. While the choice of historical records is at the discretion of the EP, historical records should identify property uses back to the property’s first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier. This task requires reviewing only as many resources as are necessary and both reasonably ascertainable and likely to be useful.
I aired my dirty laundry about how much can be missed completing an RSRA in my November 2010 blog titled “Records Search with Risk Assessment could be Risky.”
As EPs who are passionate about our profession and who understand the value of environmental due diligence (as well as being familiar with “consultants” willing to compromise industry practice) we think it’s important that these points be considered in an effort to achieve the SBA’s intent without significantly increasing the price to the borrower.
We all recognize that prior to adoption of 50 10 5 in 2008, the sites that now require a RSRA, in many cases, were getting approved with a simple EQ and nothing else. We all agree that the SBA is moving in the right direction. These suggestions would not significantly increase the cost of an RSRA and would offer far more valuable information. EPs could provide “environment consulting” allowing risk determination to be more systematic while maintaining affordability.
The SBA is revise the SOP now and is looking for input from EPs to refine this process. Please make your concerns known by sending comments to Environmentalappeals@sba.gov.
I recently read an excellent book titled “Car Guys vs. the Bean Counters” authored by industry veteran Bob Lutz, who in my opinion saved GM and turned the company around into a world class leader. The main point he hits home is you cannot sacrifice quality for bottom line performance. The countless highly educated MBAs modeled, graphed, extrapolated every financial component to satisfy a timely delivery at a low cost with little consideration for quality. The end result was a poor product with diminishing customer retention. I share Mr. Lutz’s view on settling for nothing less on quality for product. It is amazing that such a large corporation would settle for anything less. I draw parallels from the bean counter management style of a multi national corporation to many Phase I ESA Due Diligence firms. We refuse to complete the 10 day or one week Phase I ESA or no charge game. We often complete expedited due diligence with caveats to facilitate Phase II scopes but the report is typically finalized in three weeks. Quick timing to product delivery at a low cost is often a recipe for low quality and reliability. I am sure some out there are able to do this and do it well. We completed a drug store phase 1 environmental site assessment in 7 days based upon a previous report, with great data and no RECs. I suggest anyone looking for an uplifting book to read “Car Guys vs. the Bean Counters”. Even if you are not a car guy. Stand firm on your price, your quality and your timing to deliver a quality product to better our profession.
Ground Penetrating Radar Applications.
In this day and age some business models try to stay focused on the core principles and strengths. We share this philosophy with our primary focus on Building Science, Land Development and Environmental Risk Management. We excel at Phase I ESA, Phase II ESA, Lead, Mold, Asbestos, remediation, property condition assessments, etc. However, I cannot help but get excited when opportunities surface that are a diversification from our core services. Most recently we have been involved with the use of Ground Penetrating Radar relative to homicide investigation.
Prior to this we had a group inquiring with us on the service to locate former teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa. We have used this technology to identify buried utilities for general contractors in the past but nothing like scanning for buried human remains. One of the most interesting things we learned is how mislead law enforcement is from watching CSI. They were under the impression that the screen shot would look like an x-ray and you would clearly see skulls, femurs, etc. As morbid as it may be seam, I look forward to future calls from law enforcement to help solve a cold case. As a result we now list this service on our webpage under our GPR services.
EPA Announces 2011 Site Assessment, Cleanup and Revolving Loan Grant Awardees
The EPA announced the 2011 site assessment, cleanup and revolving loan grants. I had the honor of hearing EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson present a $1,000,000 revolving loan grant in our headquarters home of Lansing, MI. We were invited to this grand event as one of two firms approved to conduct work under an existing site assessment grant. Ms. Jackson was kind enough to entertain the photo below of myself and my co-founder of PM Environmental, Pete Bosanic.
The number of municipalities receiving funds has dwindled significantly since the stimulus funds have dried up. Only 6 in Michigan vs. 20 in 2010.
Filter by Date
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |