Re: [CPEO-BIF] When. where, and how? - continuing the debate

["Trilling, Barry" <BTrilling@wiggin.com>]

I think Bruce has given us the proper focus and nailed the issue:  to paraphrase a recent President, we will continue to have distrust until we have confidence in a system to verify. I don't know how Larry had time to read all those assessment reports over the years and still get all those fine articles published, and I don't claim to have read even a fraction of the number he cited; but I have read my share of incredibly bad and unreliable reports, the great majority of which bad reports predated the ASTM E1527-05 and the AAI standard.  In negotiating the standard and setting the bar for Environmental Professionals authorized to conduct AAI the loudest and most persistent advocates for strict standards were the members of the professional environmental consulting industry: geologists, engineers, and other degreed professionals.  (They continue their efforts today in the Institute of Brownfield Professionals which privates a private form of certification based on strong crede
 ntials.  I serve on an advisory committee to the IBP.)

Advisory committee members representing business and industry were for the most part content to let the consulting industry folks have their way, except for some minor rumbles from the lenders. Real estate development industry members of the committee such as I (representing NAIOP) for the most part supported strict standards.  The most persistent and vociferous opponents of stricter standards were representatives of government agencies who claimed they would have to lay off current personnel and could not afford to hire staff who had the skill that the private industry environmental consultants thought should be required. The government agency representatives made quite clear that the negotiations would end if the group did not compromise on the standard-- although it was stiffer than the government folks would have liked yet not as stringent as the consultants would have imposed.  So much for getting comfort from your regulators!  The point to this sad story, however, is no
 t that government is venal and does not care adequately for reviewing environmental cleanups:  the point is that government recognized it could not afford to provide the kind of oversight we all would like to have.

So, Bruce is correct, Lenny is correct, Larry is correct, Bill Walsh is correct:  Let's get some assurance that the work is done properly by allocating the dollars necessary for a competent police force that will enforce the laws that currently exist.  That should not require cutting back of voluntary remediation or other Brownfield programs or otherwise to disincentivise voluntary cleanups.

Barry J. Trilling
 W I G G I N  A N D  D A N A

-----Original Message-----
From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org [mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Bruce-Sean Reshen
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 12:40 PM
To: 'Schnapf, Lawrence'; 'Walsh, William'; lsiegel@cpeo.org; Larry Schnapf
Cc: 'Brownfields Internet Forum'
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] When. where, and how? - continuing the debate

Larry,

Your email has finally shifted the debate.  We are no longer debating
voluntary programs vs. what Lenny refers to as compliance-based
regulatory programs.

The issue is whether or not our society is willing to understand and
fund regulatory oversight, no matter what we call the program.  Without
such funding for oversight, the unscrupulous among us will evade their
responsibilities.  Most compliance-based programs incorporate such
oversight, but are chronically under funded and unable to effectuate
their mission.  Most voluntary programs need stronger oversight mandates
as well as increased funding.

Note the NJ DEP program that on paper is excellent.  However, a
self-study showed that a huge number of participants simply never filed
or inadequately filed the required forms and no one noticed.  We are not
talking bad regulators, we are simply observing the impact of inadequate
funding.

No program can be effective without proper funding.  This is actually
the major issue before us.

Bruce

Bruce-Sean Reshen
p. 203-259-1850
c. 917-757-5925

This communication may contain information that is legally privileged,
confidential or exempt from disclosure.  If you are not the intended
recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited.  Anyone who receives this
message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or
return email and, delete the message from their computer.



-----Original Message-----
From: Schnapf, Lawrence [mailto:Lawrence.Schnapf@srz.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:41 AM
To: Walsh, William; lsiegel@cpeo.org; Bruce-Sean Reshen
Cc: Brownfields Internet Forum
Subject: RE: [CPEO-BIF] When. where, and how? - continuing the debate

The key statement in William Walsh's email is the following:

"I believe that voluntary clean up programs if properly overseen will
result in more expeditious cleanup, less costly clean up, without the
cleanup being inadequate (or secret)"

I agree with that statement. The critical question to me is how best can
we accomplish or incentivize that outcome. We have seen that the market
cannot discipline itself and will unleash the "animal spirits" if not
properly regulated. Without proper controls, there's just the law of the
jungle because there is greed. Greed has to be tempered by fear and
regulation. I think we need to move back towards more oversight. That
does not mean telling developers how many holes to dig or where to dig
them but to make sure that sites are properly characterized and
remediated.

Larry



************************************************************************
*****
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice: Any U.S. federal tax advice included
in this
communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, for the
purpose of avoiding U.S. federal tax penalties.
************************************************************************
*****



NOTICE

This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above.
It may
contain confidential information that is privileged or that constitutes
attorney
work product.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any
attachment(s) is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please
immediately
notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and
any
attachment(s) from your system.  Thank you.
========================================================================
======

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



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