2011 CPEO Brownfields List Archive

From: Paul Nathanail <Paul@lqm.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 05:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Reply: cpeo-brownfields
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] FW: Should taxpayers pay for brownfields? The Allegheny County, Pennsylvania debate
 

Forgive my cross-pond ignorance but I thought a PRP was a term of art under CERCLA - so if the brownfield is not on the NPL there cannot be a PRP

 

the US definition of brownfield leads to a conflation of such sites with those on the NPL (which may or may not be brownfields).

 

If instead we think of brownfields as unemployed or underemployed land (with or without contamination) then the need for state/ federal intervention becomes less contentious.

 

kind regards

 

 

Paul Nathanail

 

From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org [mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Samford, Jerrold
Sent: 19 April 2011 21:14
To: Brownfields Internet Forum
Subject: [CPEO-BIF] FW: Should taxpayers pay for brownfields? The Allegheny County, Pennsylvania debate

 

"There does not appear to be any systematic effort to determine if there are viable PRPs for the sites that are being awarded brownfield grants. Given the current economic realities, it would seem to me that EPA should make an effort to recover brownfield grants from PRPs while protecting grantees/developers from contribution actions. "

 

Is this EPAs responsibility or the locality that is applying for the grant? -- OR BOTH? The laws are generally in place, but you are right, enforcement is not. We should NOT be letting corporations responsible for creating a mess off the hook.

 

----------------------------------------------------
W. Jerrold Samford, P.G., LEED AP
Environmental Compliance Specialist
Troutman Sanders, LLP
1001 Haxall Point
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 697-2225 (direct)
(804) 698-6451 (fax)

ATLANTA • CHICAGO • HONG KONG • NEW YORK • NEWARK • NORFOLK • ORANGE COUNTY • PORTLAND • RALEIGH • RICHMOND • SAN DIEGO • SHANGHAI • TYSONS CORNER • VIRGINIA BEACH • WASHINGTON, D.C.

This e-mail message and its attachments are for the sole use of the designated recipient(s). If you are not a designated recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete or destroy all copies of this message and attachments.

 

 


From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org [mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of larry@schnapflaw.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 2:16 PM
To: Lenny Siegel; Brownfields Internet Forum
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Should taxpayers pay for brownfields? The Allegheny County, Pennsylvania debate

This article raises an issue I had mentioned several months ago.

 

There does not appear to be any systematic effort to determine if there are viable PRPs for the sites that are being awarded brownfield grants. Given the current economic realities, it would seem to me that EPA should make an effort to recover brownfield grants from PRPs while protecting grantees/developers from contribution actions.

 

Currently, plant owners have no fear of abandoning plants and exporting jobs knowing the cleanup mess they leave behind is probably going to be footed by the taxpayers thru brownfield grants. I have been involved in a few projects where PRPs who have been identifie have been willing to donate funds to a worthy redevelopment project in exchange for liability relief but these occurances are far and few between. 

 

If you take a look at the announcements in Plant Closing News, many companies closing or abandoning plants are consolidating operations elsewhere in the country while others exporting the jobs remain viable entities within the US. We need to make sure that we are not creating moral hazards by letting these plant owners off the hook. A little more enforcement would at least help to replenish funding for brownfield grants and might even result in creation of fewer new brownfields.

 

Larry      

Schnapf Law Offices 
55 East 87th Street, Ste. 8B
New York, NY 10128
212-756-2205 (p) 
646-468-8483 (c)
Larry@SchnapfLaw.com
http://www.SchnapfLaw.com/

Named to Chambers USA 2009-10 Client Guide of America?s Leading Lawyers for Business.

AV? Preeminent Rating from Martindale-Hubbell

Listed in 2010 New York Super Lawyers-Metro Edition

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lenny Siegel [mailto:lsiegel@cpeo.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 01:26 PM
To: 'Brownfields Internet Forum'
Subject: [CPEO-BIF] Should taxpayers pay for brownfields? The Allegheny County, Pennsylvania debate

Allegheny exec aspirants disagree on who should clear sites By Mike Wereschagin PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW (PA) April 19, 2011 Some of the key components to Allegheny County's future lie among the relics of its old economy, but the men vying for the county's top job disagree on how to reuse the polluted industrial sites abandoned by heavy manufacturing. Redeveloping these brownfields was a centerpiece of County Executive Dan Onorato's economic development strategy for the past seven years. Now the candidates running to replace him disagree on how and whether taxpayers should foot the bill to clean up the sites, and three of the four question how effective Onorato's strategy has been. County officials don't know how much they've spent cleaning up the sites, but their 2011 budget includes $44 million in state grants for rehabilitating brownfields and other land around Pittsburgh International Airport. ... For the entire article, see http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/ s_732871.html -- Lenny Siegel Executive Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight a project of the Pacific Studies Center 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/961-8918 http://www.cpeo.org _______________________________________________ Brownfields mailing list Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org

 


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
  Follow-Ups
  References
  Prev by Date: [CPEO-BIF] Iowa tax credit legislation
Next by Date: Re: [CPEO-BIF] FW: Should taxpayers pay for brownfields?The Allegheny County, Pennsylvania debate
  Prev by Thread: [CPEO-BIF] FW: Should taxpayers pay for brownfields? The Allegheny County, Pennsylvania debate
Next by Thread: Re: [CPEO-BIF] FW: Should taxpayers pay for brownfields?The Allegheny County, Pennsylvania debate

CPEO Home
CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index