ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED IMPACTS pps

THE NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE The Nominal Group Technique is a methodology used for site selections which incorporates a quantitative means for differ-entiating between alternative sites c

BACKGROUND

This author has previously written on the subject of

environ-mental assessment by outlining its typical content

require-ments, as well as the types of expertise that are required in

the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)

The author has also discussed some of the problems

associ-ated with the EIS process and has provided some

sugges-tions in improving the quality of EIS documents This paper

examines the role of the EIS at the project level, where

ulti-mately, most decisions of project approvals or denials are

made in the 1990s by municipal reviewers rather than by

state or federal agencies

INTRODUCTION

With the advent of the National Environmental Policy Act

(i.e., NEPA) in 1969, the requirements for

environmen-tal impact reporting was originally restricted by the Act to

Federal projects, or projects subsidized in whole or in part by

Federal funding Since NEPA, many states and

municipali-ties have developed their own environmental impact

require-ments to aid in the review of projects under their jurisdiction

As a result of the above evaluation, which has coincided

with a general decentralization of power under the Reagan

administration, the approval or denial of proposals often rest

with local review of the environmental impacts of the

spe-cific project regardless of its funding source (i.e., public or

private) The evolution of ultimate decision-making at the

local level is inevitable when one considers that the most

potentially noxious sitings (e.g., nuclear power plants,

resource recovery facilities, airports, etc.) would be accepted

more critically by municipalities serving as potential host

communities than by state or federal entities Since

environ-mental standards promulgated at the federal and state levels

can be adopted or be made more restrictive at the municipal

level, the opportunity presents itself for municipalities to

uti-lize local environmental impact ordinances to tightly regulate

land-use development within their boundaries Even in cases

where states have the power to “force” sitings in

munici-palities in order to insure the health and well being of all its

constituents, most have tried, for political reasons, to justify

their positions through an environmental review process,

which, in many cases, has caused extensive delays and/or

total abandonment of such sitings As such, the preparation

and presentation of environmental impact statements at the municipal level have often become the most critical element

in the consideration and fate of many development projects

VARIATION IN EIS REPORTING AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL

The quality of EIS reporting at the municipal level often exhibits tremendous variations for one or more of the fol-lowing reasons:

1) The expectations of municipalities relating to EIS documentation varies from it merely being a for-mality with the application process to the docu-ment being a pivotal component in the approval

or denial of the project In municipalities where growth is encouraged and variances to the zone plane are given consideration with regularity, the environmental impact statement requirements may

be minimal In contrast, in municipalities which practice “no-growth” policies and/or rigidly pro-tect their zone plan, the review and critique of the EIS often is used as a weapon for denial or delay

of applications

2) The assessment ordinances, as promulgated, often allow too much subjective interpretation insofar

as EIS preparation is concerned Examples are as follows:

a Normally there are no regulations specified for the preparers of component portions of the EIS

to be identified or to provide their credentials pertinent to the sections they have prepared

b There generally are no guidelines to provide the applicant with information as to the extent

of documentation required to deem an EIS

“complete” for submission purposes

c Specific environmental quality standards to

be maintained are often either not specified

in the ordinances, or are written in qualitative rather than quantitative terms This encourages assessors to respond to environmental issues in qualitative terms rather than to conduct proper monitoring programs to establish baseline data, project thereon the added impact of the

proposal, and assess resultant values versus

existing quantitative standards The latter

approach is clearly a meaningful measure of

determining environmental conditions

d Most municipalities do not have detailed

base-line data available in such environmental

catego-ries as ambient noise, air and water quality levels

This condition makes it difficult and expensive

for the applicant to obtain a reliable data base,

and helps create the huge variation in real data

presentation found in impact statements

e Often distinction is not provided in the

assess-ment requireassess-ments for projects of vastly varying

magnitudes of scale and sensitivity This

gen-erally results in unnecessary detail provided in

small projects, and insufficient detail provided

in more complex proposals

Because of the subjectivity noted above in attempting to

“adequately” respond to many municipal environmental

ordi-nances, many applicants are reluctant to commit sufficient

funds to insure the preparation of a comprehensive

assess-ment As such, impact statement preparers may indirectly be

encouraged to prepare statements hastily in order to accelerate

the application process Unfortunately, and perhaps unfairly,

this can appear to be a reflection on the assessment preparer

rather than on the process itself, which may help to foster

inadequate responses

SUGGESTED METHODOLOGIES FOR PROVIDING

APPROPRIATE EIS DOCUMENTATION AT THE

MUNICIPAL HEARINGS

In order to resolve some of the aforementioned difficulties

encountered when attempting to prepare an appropriate EIS,

the following suggestions are offered:

1) The statement preparer should confer early in the

process with the client and all the other

profession-als involved to develop a scope of services needed

to prepare an adequate assessment independent

of the ordinance requirements The scope should

include the professionals needed, the developed

and generated data required, the respective

envi-ronmental quality standards which exist, and the

general adversities that will have to be mitigated

if the proposal is to be approved

2) The scope of effort should clearly reflect the

magnitude of the project, and should concentrate

on critical environmental issues associated with

the project

3) The assessment specialist should meet early in

the application process with the individuals, e.g.,

Township Engineer, Environmental Consultant, and

Environmental Commission members who will

be directly involved with the review of the

assess-ment These individuals should be questioned as to

their specific areas of concern, which, in turn, will generate more comprehensive analyses in the EIS The reviewers may also be helpful in citing other documents, reports, etc., known to the Township, which may be useful reference materials for the EIS preparer

4) After the EIS is completed, the reviewers should

be provided copies well in advance of the formal hearing on the application Hopefully, any ques-tions, differences, etc., can be resolved prior to the hearing Although this approach won’t always be agreed to by the reviewers, it will establish a good faith effort by the applicant to communicate and resolve differences with the assessment reviewers

It should be appreciated that not all applications are approved, and further, that assessments can be used (prop-erly or improp(prop-erly) as the main reason to reject an applica-tion Because of this fact, it is most important that the EIS be well written and well documented such that it can prevail, if needed, in an appeal situation where more objective review may be involved In essence, a good report should ultimately stand the test of objective critical review even if that situation never occurs

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING AND PRESENTING ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENTS AT THE PROJECT (MUNICIPAL) LEVEL

Practice in the preparation of EISs at the project level has generally focused on addressing the inventory, impacts, mit-igations provided, and potential alternatives to the project including the so-called “no build” alternative In addition, most EISs do not include a traffic or planning analysis as these documents are normally prepared separately by traf-fic and planning consultants Generally, the concept of “no build” in an EIS prepared for a project is not a realistic con-sideration when one is hired specifically to defend a particu-lar application Furthermore, applicants desirous of receiving approvals for a specific development plan on a particular site normally are not seriously interested in any other permitted

or conditional use alternatives allowed in the zoning regula-tions of the affected jurisdiction As such, EISs are usually prepared and reviewed basically as a go or no-go situation for a specified development plan

Regarding the levels of sophistication required in the preparation of an EIS, it generally is a function of two fac-tors, namely, the scale (i.e., magnitude) and sensitivity of the project and the anticipated formal opposition to the proj-ect While theoretically, the level of effort required in an EIS should be independent of the extent and nature of the opposition, one must recognize that additional care in the preparation is crucial when the statement can be expected to stand the test of extreme scrutiny by individuals dedicated

to defeating the project by attacking and/or discrediting por-tions of the EIS

Lastly, it should be appreciated that even if no expected

opposition to a project may arise, one should prepare a

document to the extent that the preparer can feel

profes-sionally comfortable with the report findings and could

testify with confidence on same under the potential of

cross-examination

PACKAGING AND DELIVERY OF THE EIS

The packaging of the EIS generally resides with one

indi-vidual who may have written the entire EIS or may have

prepared it in concert with other professionals The packager

must be well versed in all discipline areas involved in the

EIS to be able to edit the entire report and blend it into a

cohesive document for presentation purposes The document

should contain an executive summary at the beginning of the

report to provide an overview of the scope of work and the

pertinent findings in the EIS

PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN EIS PRESENTATION

Project level EIS preparation and presentation will require

at the minimum a site engineer, a traffic engineer, an

archi-tect, a planner, an attorney, and an environmental engineer

well versed in the management and development of EISs

Depending upon the specific project and its relative

com-plexities, it may be wise to call upon other professionals

with varied backgrounds in such disciplines as zoology,

botany, archeology, hydrology, noise and air quality

assess-ment, fiscal impact analysis, socioeconomics, etc., who

may have to prepare sections of the EIS and defend and/or

support the project in the above environmental areas

Since these experts and their findings may well determine

the viability of the project, it is important that the credentials

of these experts be recognized and respected at least in the

regions in which the development is proposed

PRESENTATION OF THE EIS TO THE PUBLIC

The EIS should be viewed as a mechanism for “selling” the

proposal in question, and the capability of the presentors

involved in the public hearing process can greatly affect the

acceptance or rejection of the project

The presentation should include the purpose of the EIS,

the nature of the study undertaken, basic findings from the

study including any unavoidable adverse impacts found,

and methods to be employed to mitigate the impacts Often,

the overall findings of the EIS can be communicated to the

municipal reviewers by the person responsible in charge of

managing and packaging the EIS

In an adversarial situation where opposing expert

wit-nesses are anticipated as well as cross-examination by an

attorney(s), it may be prudent for the applicant to have the

indi-vidual experts describe their specific contributions in the EIS

document to establish a proper record In such instances, it is

wise for the attorney of the applicant to review the testimony of the respective witnesses well before the public hearing so that the presentation can be cohesive and effective Each witness should describe the inventory study conducted, the projections

of changes resulting from the project, comparisons of same (where applicable) to related environmental standards, resul-tant beneficial and/or adverse impacts generated if the pro-posal is constructed and operated, and mitigations suggested and/or incorporated to alleviate or minimize adverse impacts

to acceptable levels

Because EIS documents normally must be defended at public hearings, it is important that the witnesses have good written and oral skills, and are well versed in expert testi-mony proceedings

The use of visual or summary materials is effective for public presentations in that audiences generally can follow visual material more closely than solely listening to speak-ers At times, hand-outs may be useful to highlight findings The visual material often aids speakers in the “flow” of information they will be presenting through the presentation

of key headings and/or issues It is helpful to have another individual objectively critique the visual material prior to presentation at the formal hearings for purposes of interpret-ing the effectiveness of the material

THE NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE The Nominal Group Technique is a methodology used for site selections which incorporates a quantitative means for differ-entiating between alternative sites considered based upon a weighting and scoring system of environmental factors asso-ciated with each alternative Although quantitative decision-making models have been utilized in environmental assessment reporting since the advent of NEPA, the Nominal Group Technique is unique in that it places the decision-making in site selection on a nominal group of citizens, usually appointed

by municipal officials, who reside in the areas that may be ultimately impacted by the site selection process After the consultants have removed potential sites from consideration based upon generally recognized exclusionary criteria (such as wetlands, floodplains, archeologically significant sites, conser-vation areas, farmland preserconser-vation districts, etc.), the nominal group, with guidance from the environmental consulting firm preparing the environmental impact report will generally per-form the following functions in the process:

1 Develop a list of environmental factors that they collectively deem pertinent in the site selection process

2 Develop a relative weighting of importance of each of the environmental factors noted above The weighting is normally based upon some arbitrary scale (e.g., 0 to 100 with 100 being of greatest significance and zero indicating no sig-nificance) Each member provides a weighting figure for each environmental factor considered, and a weighted average value is determined for

each of the factors involved Typical

environ-mental impact studies may include of the order

of 25 to 35 different environmental factors for

consideration

3 Once the environmental factors are determined by

the nominal group, the consulting group

gener-ally develops criteria for the nominal group to aid

them in weighting the impact of each

environmen-tal factor involved for the sites in question so that

the nominal group can “score” each of the sites

involved

For example, assume that the nominal group considered

noise as a factor in the siting of an airport, and further, they

judged that noise impacts should have an importance

weight-ing of 87 (out of 100)

In order to assess the impacts of sound generation from

a proposed airport on the potential sites to be considered,

the consulting group would review the demographics and

housing characteristics of the sites under consideration and

develop scoring criteria which is applied to all sites such as

in the following example:

CONDITIONS

2 miles of the proposed air-port boundaries

within 2 miles of the pro-posed airport boundaries

units within 2 miles of the proposed airport boundaries

units within 2 miles of the proposed airport boundaries

units within 2 miles of the proposed airport boundaries

As such, if the area surrounding a particular site in

ques-tion had between 6 and 25 dwelling units within 2 miles of

the airport boundaries, it would achieve a score of 87  2, or

174 points for the factor of noise, whereas, if it had no

dwell-ing units within 2 miles, it would obtain a score of 87  0,

or zero points for the factor of noise For this system scoring

approach, the higher the point value accrued for the sites

would indicate the sites most environmentally sensitive to

impacts resulting from a proposed airport

Each environmental factor would be scored by the

nomi-nal group in a fashion as noted above, and the cumulative

score for each site would be tallied and the sites ranked

accordingly in terms of the least to the greatest sensitivity to

the proposal

In order to insure the integrity of the nominal group (i.e., to avoid potential conflicts of interest in their voting behavior), the sites they would be scoring would be “masked”

so that they would not be able to identify the sites in question from the data provided to them by the consulting groups Normally, professionals from the consulting group are available to the nominal group to respond to any technical questions the group might have in formulating their numeri-cal evaluations in the process Also, in general, a series of rounds of voting would be utilized until the nominal group felt that they had reached a consensus

Use of the Nominal Group Technique methodology for site selection purposes has the following recognized benefits:

• It provides a resultant site or sites for ultimate selection purposes which is determined on a quantitative basis

• The nominal group members are unbiased in that they do not know the sites they are evaluating during the site selection process

• The process is democratic, and interactive ses-sions between members allows for interchange and stability of the process

• The group members are the decision makers rather than the consultants and, as such, they (i.e., the public) govern their own destiny in the site selection process

The Nominal Group process is an excellent tool for consultants and/or County or State Agencies, in applica-tions which face strong opposition, to provide the burden

of decision-making on the Nominal Group Committee The effectiveness of the Nominal Group Technique Method

in the site selection process is related to the following factors:

• The size of the nominal group

• The credentials of the nominal group to conduct assessments

• The method of selection of the nominal group members

• The charge given to the group before and during the site selection processes

• The role of the group and their involvement (if any) in selecting exclusionary criteria

• The basis utilized for weighting the environmental issues considered by the group members

• The basis utilized for scoring each of the issues considered by the group members

• The analysis and interpretation of the data received from the process and its related statisti-cal significance

Depending upon how the above issues are handled in

a particular study, the results can range from excellent to ridiculous, and the Nominal Group Members can play roles ranging from enlightened decision-makers to manipulated

individuals who serve solely to justify a site selection at the

conclusion of the process

POTENTIAL FLAWS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE APPROACH

One must be careful in the implementation of the Nominal

Group Technique not to allow for flaws in the process which

can ultimately be utilized by astute objectors to defeat the

proposal Once the validity of the process can be critically

questioned, the Nominal Group Technique, in itself, can

prove to be the death knell of the study

Some of the flaws noted in studies previously reviewed

and critiqued by this author which utilized the Nominal

Group Technique are as follows:

• The nominal group members may not be asked to

participate in developing exclusionary criteria to

initially exclude some sites

• The nominal group size varied from five (5)

mem-bers to twelve (12) memmem-bers for three major studies

reviewed by this author One can seriously question

the statistical significance of the findings of such a

sample of respondents

• Environmental criteria and nominal group

mem-bers were changed in one study as it proceeded to

reduce the number of feasible sites in the staged

process The problem which occurs is that with

inconsistent evaluation criteria and evaluators,

dif-ferent final conclusions regarding site selection

may be drawn depending upon when the various

criteria and evaluators entered into the process

• As nominal group members vote through a series

of rounds in order to arrive at a “consensus” in

the process, a reasonable consistency in the voting

pattern through each round for each individual

group member should be fairly evident Major

shifting in the voting posture of group members

suggests a lack of understanding and knowledge

of the issues in evaluating the sites, which places

resultant findings into serious question

• When weighing each site for each environmental

factor considered, the point system used to

dif-ferentiate between sites must be sensitive enough

for evaluators to recognize distinct differences

between the sites If such sensitivity cannot be

established, the quality of the resultant scores

can be questioned Generally, sensitivity can be

achieved if and only if the consultants have

thor-oughly reviewed each site in question to establish

meaningful criteria for nominal group members

to vote upon

Because of common flaws as noted above, it would be

relatively easy for people well versed in the impact assessment

process to either stop or seriously delay a project

POSSIBLE STEPS TO ENHANCE THE SUCCESS OF UTILIZING THE NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE IN ASSESSMENT REPORTING

Steps which may be taken to increase the probability of suc-cessful outcomes (i.e., sitings) utilizing the Nominal Group Technique approach are as follows:

1 Utilize a statistically significant sample of nominal group members to insure that potential errors in site selection can’t be attributed solely to sample size

2 Use a consistent nominal group with consistent criteria throughout the entire evaluation process

3 Screen candidates to ensure that they have suf-ficient knowledge of the proposal and related impacts associated therewith to make credible value judgments

4 Nominal group members should participate in the selection of exclusionary criteria which will

be used to eliminate sites at the beginning of the process

5 Provide the environmental consultants with responsibility for the project with sufficient time and budget to reasonably develop criteria for each environmental factor considered by the nominal group for the group to differentiate between the subject sites

Although the above steps will not insure the acceptance

of the proposals in question, it will enhance the probability of success and it will not detract from the potential benefits of utilizing the Nominal Group Technique approach in environ-mental impact analyses

Since the early 1970s, the concept of the wetlands and the resultant need for wetlands delineation in the United States has become a paramount issue in site development and related assessment reporting Parcels which are characterized as wetlands are normally deemed so on the basis of their soil strata, their relatively shallow depth to seasonal high ground-water table and by the nature of the vegetation that they will

be able to sustain If a parcel is deemed a wetland (which

is a somewhat subjective approach usually negotiated in the field by engineers and botanists representing the applicants and the review agencies), buffers must also be established beyond the delineated wetlands based on the “quality” of the wetlands

In densely populated areas, where prime developable land is often scarce, the potential for encountering wetlands

on a site is a distinct possibility From a site development standpoint, it is incumbent that a wetlands delineation survey

be conducted initially by competent professionals to assess the potential loss of site acreage This approach should also

be considered by potential developers prior to purchasing or taking an option to purchase a site Too often, this author has witnessed applications well into the review process which are either withdrawn or are no longer economically feasible

to construct because of subsequent findings of wetlands on

the site This often leads to time consuming and costly

litiga-tion between applicants and their design professionals

The analysis of traffic-induced noise and air quality

impacts in environmental assessment reporting has been

conducted in most reports since the passage of NEPA

Normally, many attendees at public hearings are confused

about the logarithmic nature of decibel levels (the

stan-dard noise descriptor) and how multiple sources of sound

are added in terms of decibels In addition, they generally

do not have the technical background to assess results

gen-erated from noise and air pollution mathematical models

often employed by professionals preparing assessments

However, the public, over the last thirty years, have

dem-onstrated an increasing tendency to voice more concerns at

hearings related to noise and air quality issues, and quality

of life issues as a whole

In addition, because traffic noise generation by vehicles

on public highways, and rail and aviation noise generation

are not normally regulated by municipalities, and further,

because the agencies which regulate rail and aircraft noise

have less stringent or no standards of compliance at

resi-dential property lines (or properties in the case of aircraft)

compared to typical municipal noise ordinances, noise

gen-eration from these sources is being challenged more often

by the public

In populated and well developed communities, the

remaining parcels to be developed are often situated in close

proximity to rail lines, airports and heavily traveled

high-ways Lastly, society is trending toward greater longevity,

and noise and air pollution more adversely affect senior

citi-zens than the rest of the general population As such, credible

assessment reporting in the disciplines of noise and air

qual-ity, as well as providing meaningful mitigation techniques in

site design and orientation for residential applications

pro-posed in proximity to major potential noise and air quality

generators are critical for one to be successful in convincing

an often cynical public

Lastly, the air quality standards promulgated for mobile

source (i.e., traffic) pollutants in the Clean Air Act of 1970,

with the exception of ozone (which is generated about

equally by mobile and stationary air pollution sources) have

remained unchanged, yet most urban areas, where air

pol-lution generation is normally at the highest levels, have

remained in compliance over the period in question This has

occurred despite a major increase in driver registration and

vehicular miles traveled on US highways since 1970, due in

major parts to technological advances (e.g., catalytic

muf-flers since the mid 70s, which have reduced vehicular

emis-sions to offset population growth However, in the United

States in the near future, we will be challenged with the need

to find alternative fuel sources for vehicles which generate

less air pollutants if we are to remain in compliance with

the Ambient Air Quality Standards promulgated in 1970 for

mobile source pollutants

In summary, issues such as wetlands delineation, air

pol-lution and traffic-induced noise must be given serious

atten-tion in assessment reporting for applicaatten-tions to be approved

by reviewing bodies Increased public awareness on how effectively to critique decision-making methodologies and basic assumptions associated with mathematical models employed in conjunction with assessment preparation is placing an increased burden to defend properly their appli-cation in the reporting process

RISK ASSESSMENT REPORTING AND ASSOCIATED STRATEGIES

If an application involves a project which can (or may) be deemed as a potential threat to life, limb or property result-ing from its construction and/or operation, reviewresult-ing agen-cies will normally require a risk assessment to be prepared

in addition to an environmental assessment The function of

a risk assessment is to quantify (where possible) the risk of death, injury and potential loss of personal property asso-ciated with the worst-case scenarios that can be perceived occurring on the subject site Typically, risk assessors are to prepare their assessment utilizing the principle of Murphy’s Law that “all that can go wrong, will!” All aspects of the operation on the site, including transportation, handling, storing, processing of the product involved and related by-product generation and disposal must be considered, and probabilities of risk quantified (based upon industry practice and history) for each phase of the operation on an annual basis

For all aspects of risk considered, one assesses the so-called “safe separation distance” (SSD) from the site should a particular failure mode occur either on the site or

by transmission from the site (e.g., vapor dispersion of a product or by-product) If potential sensitive receptors are located within the SSD, then those cumulative risks from all potential modes associated with the site in question must be quantified For parcels located beyond the SSD, the risks are considered negligible

Once a potential risk is quantified for a particular site, mitigations to the risk can be investigated, based on the pro-posed implementation of mitigating factors for the subject site and the historical value based on industrial experience related to their effectiveness in reducing risk Examples of mitigating factors may include the following: availability

of fire-fighting capability on the site or within a short dis-tance of the site, accident history of the particular company involved, training of personnel on site, etc Generally, a value between 0 and 1 is assessed for each mitigating factor, which is then multiplied by the cumulative risk probability for the proposal This, in essence, produces a reduced prob-ability of risk

The risks associated with the proposal are typically compared to the “normal risk” to which individuals are subjected in conducting their daily lives To develop such

a perspective, published annual fatality statistics due to accidents (vehicular, aircraft, drowning, lightning, elec-trocution, falls, etc.) are available from all industrialized nations which, based on total population statistics, can be

normalized to a probability of fatality per year basis for the

general population Utilizing the above information, a risk

assessment can then compare the risks associated with

func-tioning daily as opposed to the risk associated with living in

proximity to a proposed development with a perceived and

quantified risk

The purpose of the above comparisons is to provide

decision-makers with a quantitative means to evaluate the

risks associated with a proposal with its potential for impact

on the quality of life of individuals who would be living in

close proximity to the site Although any application will

provide some increased risk to the general public (which

will normally create a negative response), the relative risk

compared to the daily risk to which one is normally

sub-jected provides reviewers with an added tool upon which

to render an informed decision Lastly, it is not the role of

a risk assessment preparer to try to convince the public to

accept a particular project! Rather, the burden is to provide

sufficient quantitative information for decision makers

to render an informed decision on a difficult application

which will generally be viewed with anxiety by neighboring

residents

FORENSIC ENGINEERING REPORTING AND

ASSOCIATED STRATEGIES

In certain situations, environmental engineers normally

engaged in environmental and/or risk assessment reporting

may be approached to conduct forensic engineering studies

Forensic engineers are generally involved in providing

technical support and, perhaps, expert testimony for

attor-neys representing plaintiffs or defendants in civil claims

wherein a plaintiff has been killed or injured allegedly due,

in part, to one or more defendants Attorneys representing

plaintiffs or their estate in cases of the death of the

plain-tiff generally accept cases on the basis of contingency (i.e.,

they collect a fee for service only either through a settlement

out of court or by winning the court case), whereas

defen-dants are represented by attorneys they retained directly or

attorneys representing insurance companies who insure the

defendant (which is typical for small businesses and/or

cor-porations)

Environmental engineers operating in the forensics area

for a plaintiff will generally be asked to prepare a report

which supports the claims of an attorney representing a

plaintiff versus one or more defendants Engineers

repre-senting a defendant will be asked to review the plaintiff’s

expert(s) reports and to prepare a report which can either

totally or partially discount claims by the opposing expert(s)

against the defendant

Forensic engineering studies are unique compared to

environmental or risk assessments in that claims are often

introduced after the occurrence of the incident which

pre-cipitated the case As such, forensic engineers normally

must digest a volume of paperwork regarding the incident

itself, as well as reports and interrogatories that may have

been responded to by parties with knowledge of the incident,

or other professionals (i.e., physicians, psychologists, etc.) who have been asked to present their expert opinions on the case Forensic engineers additionally will normally perform site visits, speak to parties of interest, and perform techni-cal analyses (where appropriate) in support of preparation of their expert report

Environmental and risk impact report preparers will invariably be required to also provide expert testimony before municipal, state or federal hearing Officers to defend their document and related findings as a part of a process

to secure approvals to construct and operate a structure(s)

In forensic engineering investigations, at least in the United States, it has been the author’s experience (as well as others

in the discipline with whom he has consulted) that only about 10% of the cases ever go to trial The remaining 90%

of the cases are settled out of court The reasons for this may

be explained by some or all of the following

The plaintiff’s attorney is paid only on contingency and will often try to avoid the risk of a lengthy trial by accepting a settlement out of court In major cases, defendants are usually defended by insurers who would prefer to make a settlement payout as a “nuisance” value rather than pay attorneys to pre-pare and be involved in a lengthy court case

Because technical experts are generally required to

“reconstruct” events which occurred years before they were retained and because many of the parties of interest in the case cannot be contacted due to death, illness, change of address, etc., the resultant expert reports are more subject to scrutiny and question than when one is reporting on current situations As such, attorneys for both plaintiffs and defen-dants may be more concerned about the abilities of their experts to defend their positions under intense cross exami-nations by opposing lawyers Civil cases are generally heard and decisions rendered by a jury, and both sides consider this

to be a difficult body “to read” and select on the jury, par-ticularly, when cases involve issues and arguments which are highly technical in nature As a result, the technical reports prepared by the respective forensic engineers representing the plaintiff and defendant are often the key determinant

in the amount of settlement award that will ultimately be agreed upon by both sides

Environmental engineers who wish to pursue employment

in the field of forensic engineering can best accomplish this

by informing injury litigators and/or insurance companies of their interest

REFERENCES

Canter, L., Environmental Impact Assessment 2nd Edition McGraw-Hill

Publishers 1996

Delbecq et al., Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes Scott Foresman and Company 1975 Dresnack, R., Environmental Assessments and Related Impacts Advances in

Environmental Science and Engineering, 2, Gordon and Breach Science

Publishers 1979

Dresnack, R., Environmental Impact Advances in Environmental Science

and Engineering, 4 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers 1981

Dresnack, R., Environmental Assessments and Related Impacts The

Ency-clopedia of Environmental Science and Engineering 4th Edition

Gordon and Breach Science Publishers 1998

Goldfarb, W., Environmental Law The Encyclopedia of Environmental

Science and Engineering 4th Edition Gordon and Breach Science

Publishers 1998

Leopold, L.B et al., Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact

Geological Survey Circular 645 1971

Pfafflin, J., Environmental Impact, in Clean Production—Environmental

and Economic Perspectives, pp 285–291, K B Misra, Editor

Springer-Verlag Heidelberg 1996

Plater, G Z B., Abrams, R., Goldfarb, W and Wisch, D L., Environmen-tal Law and Policy: Nature, Law and Society, 3rd Edition Aspen

Publishers 2004

Van de Ven and Delbecq, Nominal versus Interacting Group Process for

Committee Decision-Making Effectiveness Academy of Management Journal June 1971

ROBERT DRESNACK

New Jersey Institute of Technology