Re: [CPEO-BIF] Proposals for EPA's March 17 listening session

[Lenny Siegel <lennysiegel@gmail.com>]

FROM A STATE REGULATOR ...

Lenny,

I'd like to see a little more "meat on the bone" regarding "Section 
312.29 - The relationship between purchase price vs. value of property, 
if not contaminated", namely a little more research into the "value of 
the property, if not contaminated."  It seems to me that this should be 
a requirement of the Environmental Professional.  At a minimum, the 
value listed on the Tax Rolls should be required.  We're not talking 
rocket science here.

As far as the "disclosure" issue is concerned, it is very simple.  As 
long as it is up to the "Environmental Professional" (and I use that 
term loosely) to decide whether a REC poses a threat to public health 
and the environment (i.e., his/her own judgment of the STATE's 
rules),... ain't nothin' gonna happen.

While there are exceptions out there, "Doin' The Right Thing" is, for 
the most part, just a movie.


_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org