2010 CPEO Brownfields List Archive

From: "Trilling, Barry" <BTrilling@wiggin.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 21:30:17 -0800 (PST)
Reply: cpeo-brownfields
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.
**********************************************************************



_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org
  Follow-Ups
  References
  Prev by Date: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Proposals for EPA's March 17 listening session
Next by Date: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Proposals for EPA's March 17 listening session
  Prev by Thread: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Proposals for EPA's March 17 listening session
Next by Thread: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Proposals for EPA's March 17 listening session

CPEO Home
CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index