Our lawyer colleague Lee Hoffman at Hartford's Pullman &
Comley suggests we simplify the process and solve the problem by setting a
minimum fee for Phase I assessments, say $3000. That would likely level
the playing field and weed out the least competent. If what we think of
as the "high priced spread" costs no more than the otherwise cheap
vegetable oil substitute, who would choose the lower quality option? :You
could set the floor by regulation with a semi-annual adjustment based on the
consumer price index or establish some other metric, perhaps a percentage or
multiple of the tax assessment value of the property to be assessed. The
important point is to prevent exclusion of the most qualified EPs. Food
for thought.
Barry J. Trilling
W I G G I N A N D
D A N A
From: LSchnapf@aol.com
[mailto:LSchnapf@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:53 PM
To: petestrauss1@comcast.net; Trilling, Barry
Cc: brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Proposals for EPA's March 17 listening session
I think Jerry is right on. If you say it is not rocket science and
only requires "records or superficial evidence" then that is what
will the clients will think and that is what you will get. There are too many
home inspectors, unemployed architects and mortgage brokers who are passing the
time as EPs.
What is needed is higher entrance barriers to raise the quality of
the work that is being done. There are firms out there that are nothing more
than a bunch of independent contractors who fill out a template and then attach
100 pages of data base records to make the report look comprehensive.
I reviewed about 10,000 phase 1 reports in the past
decade (which I affectionately call the "Henny Youngman" era when
banks were saying "take my money") and you would not believe the
characters that tried to pass themselves off as EPs. So long as clients are
willing to pay for those low-ball prices, we will continue to commodity
shops.
at least lawyers and engineers have exams they have to pass that
require minimal skills. The EPs have no such requirements.
worse, the site inspections and reports can be performed
by persons who are not EPs so long as they are "supervised" (usually
remotely") by an EP. The current system is a joke. Talented individuals
at real engineering firms cannot compete with the Phase 1 factories.
One of the reasons we had a sub-prime mortgage debacle was that
anyone could be a mortgage broker and we had lots of incompetent or
unethical persons conning unsophisticated borrowers to do loans they could
not afford. The EP world is fast descending to the depths of the mortgage
business.