Re: [CPEO-BIF] Brownfields Digest, Vol 67, Issue 9

["Bob & Margie Joehnck" <joehnck@usamedia.tv>]

I am not quite sure what the subject is but in view of the fact that we
now have EPA's "All Appropriate Inquiry" detailed requirements for the
quality of the reporter, is there a chance of changing your standard to
require someone who meets the EPA qualifications to prepare an AAI
report?

Bob Joehnck
Attorney, California

-----Original Message-----
From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org
[mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of
brownfields-request@lists.cpeo.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:05 AM
To: brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
Subject: Brownfields Digest, Vol 67, Issue 9

Send Brownfields mailing list submissions to
	brownfields@lists.cpeo.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	brownfields-request@lists.cpeo.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	brownfields-owner@lists.cpeo.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Brownfields digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. [Fwd: Pennsylvania legal case] (Lenny Siegel)
   2. Re: Proposals for  EPA's March 17 listening session
      (Samford, Jerrold)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:56:20 -0800
From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
To: Brownfields Internet Forum <brownfields@lists.cpeo.org>
Subject: [CPEO-BIF] [Fwd: Pennsylvania legal case]
Message-ID: <4B96B5F4.6090101@cpeo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Brownfield internet forum
Date: 	Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:39:25 -0500
From: 	Andzelik, John <joandzelik@state.pa.us>
To: 	'lsiegel@cpeo.org' <lsiegel@cpeo.org>

I receive the Brownfield mailing emails and think they are a great
source of information and discussion, especially for a staffer like
myself who doesn't always see or here the national perspective. I'd be
curious to here some of the forum participants comments to the below
article.

http://pabrownfieldsenvironmentallaw.foxrothschild.com/2010/03/articles/
bombshell-decision-holds-dep-staffers-personally-liable-for-civil-rights
-violations/


John R Andzelik | Compliance Specialist
Environmental Cleanup Program
400 Waterfront Drive | Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Office: 412-442-5801 | Fax: 412-442-4194






------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:24:11 -0500
From: "Samford, Jerrold" <Jerry.Samford@troutmansanders.com>
To: "brownfields@lists.cpeo.org" <brownfields@lists.cpeo.org>
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Proposals for  EPA's March 17 listening
	session
Message-ID:
	
<7928EDE16DE28A49BB49D8F2E2EAE1582E54106403@PRIEXS01CCR.usa.troutmansand
ers.com>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Can you spell "anti-trust lawyer's field day?"

J.
________________________________________
From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org
[brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Trilling, Barry
[BTrilling@wiggin.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:46 PM
To: 'LSchnapf@aol.com'; petestrauss1@comcast.net
Cc: brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Proposals for  EPA's March 17 listening session

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

Peter,

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.

Larry

**********************************************************************
This transmittal is intended for a particular addressee(s). It
may constitute a confidential attorney-client communication.
If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error;
any review, copying or distribution or dissemination is strictly
prohibited. If you suspect that you have received this
transmittal in error, please notify Wiggin and Dana
immediately at 203-498-4400, or by email, reply to the sender
and delete the transmittal and any attachments.

Neither this message nor the documents attached to this
message are encrypted.
**********************************************************************





IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice that may be
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
(i) avoiding any penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction(s)
or tax-related matter(s) that may be addressed herein.


This e-mail communication (including any attachments) may contain
legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the
use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
you should immediately stop reading this message and delete it from your
system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying or other use of
this communication (or its attachments) is strictly prohibited.


------------------------------

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


End of Brownfields Digest, Vol 67, Issue 9
******************************************

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