Re: [CPEO-BIF] Re: Brownfields Digest, Vol 6, Issue 10

[Bruce-Sean Reshen <reshen@mindspring.com>]

I suggest we distinguish between those sites that were previously "closed" and current sites undergoing remediation and closure.  For current sites developers should be well aware of VI issues and potential costs can be rationally included into the costing process.  If developers choose not to deal with such issues (and assuming the regulators do not insist), then they should clearly bare those costs if and when further remediation becomes necessary.

However, we must realize that previously closed sites fall into a separate and distinct category.  Developers who completed all appropriate inquiry under the rules at that time without uncovering any VI issues and did all required remediation, could not possibly factor VI issues into their cost analysis.  The implicit brownfields bargain is that a developer should be able to rely on the brownfields agreement for protection.  While the developer should be
expected to obtain insurance coverage for reopener issues related to the remediation work ,  issues unrelated to prior cleanup activities should not be the responsibility of the developer.  If environmental purists wish to hold the development community to such unrealistic standards, then the brownfields revolution is over.  Development will come to a halt and we can all obsess about the future destruction of "greenfields" and wonder why no one want to take on
the responsibility of reviving unutilized brownfield sites.  Brownfields development requires a measure of finality.  To deny this reality is shortsighted and extremely poor public policy.



LSchnapf@aol.com wrote:

> 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

_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields