E & E Service & Supply, Inc.

Simon & Associates, Inc. is in receipt of your letter dated July 6, 2016, and offers the followingresponse in regards to the complaint sent by [redacted].Simon & Associates, Inc. conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at [redacted]
[redacted]...

(property), for [redacted]. in September 2010. Allservices were conducted in general accordance with the American Society for Testing andMaterials (ASTM) Standard E1527-05. The report dated September 30, 2010, stated that therewere no recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with the property. With thatbeing said, Simon & Associates, Inc. also subrnitted a letter to Ms. [redacted], President of[redacted]. on September 30, 2010, that provided additional information regarding potentialenvironmental concerns on the property. These included a former waste oil tank (reportedlyremoved from property), a discussion regarding a dry cleaners that operated on the property, howto deal with floor drains in the building, and suggestions on cleaning up an area outside thebuilding that containecl numerous automobile parts and a large amount of petroleum-stained soiland gravel. These issues were not identified as RECs because 1) there were no records or visualevidence indicating release had occurred from either an oil tank or dry cleaning operation;, and2)the petroleum-stained soil was considered to be de minimis (would not be considered to be aregulatory issue).Simon & Associates, Inc. performed a Phase I ESA on the property for a potential buyer of theproperty in December 2015. The work was conducted in general accordance with the AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E1527-13. The report identified three (3)RECs and two (2) business environmental risks (BERs) at the property. The RECs included thewaste oil tank, the dry cleaning operation, and petroleum-stained area along the wall on theoutside the building. All of these issues were identified and discussed in the 2010 Phase I ESAand associated business risk letter.An oil-water separator inside the building was identified as a Business Environmental Risk in the2015 Phase I ESA report. This was not identified during the previous Phase I ESA because therewas no visual evidence of it because of materials covering the floor and its presence was notdivulged by the owner's representative during the site walk-over.It is important to note that there is no list of RECs that an Environmental Professional (EP)selects from when doing a Phase I ESA. The decision for an Environmental Professional todesignate something as a REC is based on several factors, including information obtained fromrecords search and the site walk over.Accusations by Ms. [redacted] regarding dishonesty and refusal to give information are simply nottrue. Refusal to give information was based on client-confidentiality. Ms. [redacted] was not ourclient for the 2015 assessment activities; therefore, we could not give her any informationwithout the consent of our client. Ms. [redacted] was informed of that on several instances and weunderstand that Ms. [redacted] was provided with a copy of the Phase I ESA report.Following submittal of the 2015 Phase I ESA report to our client, representatives of Simon &Associates, Inc. met with Ms. [redacted] at the property on January 6,2016 (at her request). Ms.[redacted] had cleaned up the outdoor area where petroleum-staining had been identified as a REC.Simon & Associates, Inc. was provided with maintenance records regarding the oil-wateridentified in the 2015 Phase I ESA as a Business Environmental Risk. During the January 6,2016, meeting, we told Ms. [redacted] that we would issue an addendum to the Phase I ESA to ourclient. The Addendum was submitted to our client on January 14, 2016, eliminating thepetroleum-stained area as a REC. We also informed Ms. [redacted] on January 6, 2016, that wewould help her with any future environmental work if possible...not that we would "do whateverneeded at least for their company's cost". Her interpretation of "help" was that we would pay forall environmental investigations or remediation that needed done. She wanted a Phase II ESA(sampling activities) conducted; however, we advised her to wait to see if such a study would berequested by the client and/or client's commercial lender. Professionally, we were working forour client, not Ms. [redacted], and we explained that to her. This advice was also given to save herfrom spending thousands of dollars for a Phase II ESA that may not have been required.Simon & Associates, Inc. prepared separate Phase I ESAs for the property using the ASTMstandards that were in place at the time of the studies. The changes between the ASTM E1527-05 and E1527-13 standards tightened the definition of a REC, included more definitive languageregarding "releases" and "migration", and included vapor intrusion as a migration path. ASTME1527-13 also imposes additional record review requirements. If the EP identifies the propertyor an adjoining site on a government environmental database, it must review relevant agencyfiles to assess whether such identification indicates a REC. These changes also caused theenvironmental industry as a whole to be stricter in naming RECs at sites.SincerelySIMON & ASSOCIATES. INC.

I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]
I once again must make aware of the conversation between [redacted] and myself on my lot if my business whereas it was stated that if there were any concerns due to the fact of the worst esa phase study ever done in 2011 that clearly states that the property had no recs or bers with absolutely no change since then... I was promised by the above that if something arises then if not "pro bono " then at cost would be offered to me. This company failed to give me a study that was reliable ( obviously) and now is dishonest in their representation of their intentions. I have since hired another environmental company that performed the same test with very different results. These guys should be ashamed of their dishonesty and just plain failure to provide anything reliable. Huge trust issue with these people. Make sure everything is in writing or it could drastically change very quickly. There is nothing short of cleanup if it is even necessary at this point would satisfy me. Even then I could not trust anything they say.