From: | LSchnapf@aol.com |
Date: | 11 Feb 2005 19:46:04 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-brownfields |
Subject: | [CPEO-BIF] Re: Brownfields Digest, Vol 6, Issue 10 |
My view of the VI issue is somewhat different from my esteemed colleagues of the bar. I think that vapor intrusion should be addressed like any other media (e.g., groundwater and soil) and then an appropriate remedy be included as part of the development to address the on-site exposure. If a developer is building a structure and will either be inviting persons onto the property or selling/leasing the parcel, it is only fair for the developer to address VI. Like any other remediation issue, I think the main concern here is uncertainty. If a developer knows discovers that there is a VI issue, then they can engineer that into the development and price it into the project. I dont think the public fisc should be depleted for on-site VI issues that could be address by engineering solutions as part of the development. Larry -- Larry Schnapf 55 E.87th Street #8B/8C New York, NY 10128 212-876-3189 home 212-756-2205 office 212-593-5955 fax www.environmental-law.net website _______________________________________________ Brownfields mailing list Brownfields@list.cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields |
Follow-Ups
|
Prev by Date: [CPEO-BIF] "N.J. moves to speed building on brownfields " Next by Date: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Re: Brownfields Digest, Vol 6, Issue 10 | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-BIF] "N.J. moves to speed building on brownfields " Next by Thread: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Re: Brownfields Digest, Vol 6, Issue 10 |