Environmental. What s in the New Brownfields Law for Site Owners and Developers? Overfile Protection, Funding and Liability Relief
|
|
- Francine Knight
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Environmental FEBRUARY 2002 What s in the New Brownfields Law for Site Owners and Developers? Overfile Protection, Funding and Liability Relief In 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ( CERCLA aka Superfund ) was enacted for the primary purpose of funding and accomplishing the cleanup of contaminated properties. Since then, in addition to the various industrial operations whose processes generated hazardous substances and wastes that were treated or disposed of at facilities across the country, many businesses, municipalities and other organizations have been snared in Superfund s widely cast and sticky web of strict, joint and several liability. Others, intent on redeveloping brownfields sites (underutilized contaminated properties), have been frustrated, delayed and discouraged by the bureaucracies and liabilities associated with the federal Superfund law. In recent years, states have made tremendous strides in encouraging brownfields redevelopment by enacting voluntary cleanup laws with land use-based remediation standards and protection from state law liability for those who remediate a site under a state program. Nonetheless, the federal Superfund law continued to be a major impediment to successful brownfields redevelopment opportunities. Much of that concern has now been addressed by the enactment of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, P.L (the Act ). The Act was signed into law by President Bush on January 11, 2002 and is the result of substantial effort by those interested in accomplishing Superfund reform. The three primary issues addressed by the Act are (1) protection from overfiling associated with state cleanup programs, (2) brownfields revitalization funding, and (3) small business (and small shipments) liability protection. The Act also includes some statutory clarification of CERCLA defenses and liability issues. No one has worked harder or more diligently for these reforms than Linda Garczynski, Director of Outreach and Special Projects for the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ), to accomplish this feat. Ms. Garczynski also is responsible for the national Brownfields Conference that attracts thousands from across the country each year to discuss approaches for successful brownfields redevelopment efforts. We spoke to Ms. Garczynski to get her thoughts on the Act, and her comments are included throughout this Alert. LIMITATION OF EPA AUTHORITY TO OVERFILE AT SITES REMEDIATED UNDER STATE CLEANUP PROGRAMS Background Currently, at least 35 states have voluntary brownfields cleanup programs. Generally, such programs provide cleanup standards based upon anticipated future land use and protection from state law liability to persons that clean up facilities under the program. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP
2 Willingness to participate in a state voluntary cleanup program may be tempered by the concern that potential CERCLA liability is unaffected by compliance with the state program. In an attempt to address those concerns, the EPA has executed memoranda of agreement ( MOAs ) with about 18 states recognizing that the state should generally be the lead agency with respect to such sites. See, Final Draft Guidance for Developing Superfund Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) Language Concerning State Voluntary Cleanup Programs, 62 Fed. Reg (Sept. 9, 1997). The EPA does not provide CERCLA liability protection or relinquish any of its CERCLA enforcement authority under the MOAs, but merely states that it does not generally anticipate taking removal or remedial action at sites participating in the state voluntary cleanup program. 62 Fed. Reg Congress found that, indeed, EPA has never overfiled, i.e., exercised CERCLA enforcement authority at a facility undergoing remediation pursuant to a state voluntary cleanup program. S. REP. NO , at 32 (Mar. 12, 2001). Nonetheless, the fear that EPA retains such authority serves as a disincentive to brownfields redevelopment. Changes Introduced by the Act: The Enforcement Bar The Act provides that EPA may not bring an enforcement action under CERCLA 106 or 107 regarding a release at an eligible response site against a person who is conducting or has completed a response action with respect to such release in compliance with a state cleanup program. 42 U.S.C. 9628(b)(1)(A). Because the purpose of this enforcement bar is to encourage future cleanups, it only applies to response actions conducted after February 15, U.S.C. 9628(b)(3). Applicability Eligible Response Sites For purposes of the enforcement bar, an eligible response site is defined as real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. 42 U.S.C. 9601(41)(A) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 9601(39)(A)). The definition specifically excludes:! A National Priority List ( NPL ) facility (aka Superfund site );! A facility where EPA has developed a preliminary score sufficient for possible listing on the NPL, or that otherwise qualifies for the NPL, unless EPA has determined that no further federal action will be taken;! A facility subject to a planned or ongoing CERCLA removal action or CERCLA order;! A federal facility;! Facilities that EPA determines warrant particular consideration as identified by regulation, such as sites posing a threat to a sole-source drinking water aquifer or sensitive ecosystem; and! One of the following facilities, unless EPA determines, on a site-by-site basis, after consultation with the state, that the enforcement bar would be appropriate, protective of human health and the environment and promote goals of brownfields redevelopment (e.g., economic development, protection of green spaces): A facility subject to an order or permit by EPA or authorized state pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C et seq. ( RCRA ), Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C et seq. ( CWA ), Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C et seq. ( TSCA ), or Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f ( SDWA ); 2 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART LLP ENVIRONMENTAL ALERT
3 A facility that is the subject of an RCRA corrective action permit or order or RCRA closure plan; or A polychlorinated biphenyl ( PCB )- contaminated facility subject to remediation under TSCA. 42 U.S.C. 9601(41). This final exclusion has unique implications to facilities with ongoing operations subject to a CWA permit. The releases at such facilities may be of a historical nature and be completely unrelated to the current CWA permit. Nonetheless, if a person remediating a release at such a facility under a state cleanup program desires the benefits of the enforcement bar, it must bring the facility (and the release) to the attention of EPA so that EPA can make a determination that the bar is appropriate. Eligible State Cleanup Programs For the enforcement bar to apply, the state cleanup program must be one that specifically governs response actions for the protection of the public health and the environment. 42 U.S.C. 9628(b)(1)(A)(2). This language would seem to include both mini-superfund laws that proliferated in the 1980s as well as voluntary cleanup programs with remediation standards and liability releases that were widely enacted in the 1990s. The Act has no requirement that EPA review and approve state cleanup programs in order for the enforcement bar to apply to facilities addressed under the program. However, for a state cleanup program to qualify, the Act requires that the state must maintain a public record, updated annually, of facilities addressed under the program, including the status of each facility in the program. Upon completion of a response action for a facility under the program, the public record must identify any land use restrictions or institutional controls relied upon in the response action. 42 U.S.C. 9628(b)(1)(C). Exceptions to the Enforcement Bar EPA may nonetheless bring a CERCLA enforcement action at an eligible response site that has been addressed under a state cleanup program if one of the following exceptions applies:! The state requests federal involvement;! EPA determines that hazardous substances may migrate across state lines or onto a federal facility;! New information, not known at the time of cleanup, is discovered such that the release requires further remediation to protect public health and the environment; or! After considering the response action already taken under the state cleanup program, EPA determines that the release or threatened release may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment and that additional response actions are likely to be necessary to address, prevent, limit or mitigate the release or threatened release. 42 U.S.C. 9628(b)(1)(B). The last exception would seem to swallow the enforcement bar whole. EPA s authority under CERCLA 106, for example, is predicated on the requirement that EPA determines that there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment associated with the release of hazardous substances. 42 U.S.C. 9606(a). A substantial body of case law has developed interpreting the phrase imminent and substantial endangerment as used in several environmental statutes, and courts almost uniformly defer to EPA s determination that such imminent and substantial endangerment exists. However, the Act, supported by the legislative history, reveals that Congress placed two real limitations on EPA s authority under this exception, and thereby envisions that overfiling potential based upon this exception would be rare. FEBRUARY 2002 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP 3
4 First, EPA is to make the imminent and substantial endangerment determination, taking into account the reductions in risk effectuated by the response action under the state cleanup program. Second, even where EPA nonetheless finds imminent and substantial endangerment under this standard, EPA is still not authorized to act unless additional response actions are likely to be necessary to address the remaining risk. 42 U.S.C. 9628(b)(1)(B)(iii). According to Congress, these two additional limitations are reflective of current EPA practice at state voluntary cleanup sites, as implemented through policy, and such limitations have resulted in EPA never having taken an enforcement action at a brownfields site being addressed under a State cleanup program without a request from the State. S. REP. NO , at 18 (Mar. 21, 2001). History suggests that EPA will not apply a heavy hand in implementing this safety net. Id. at 27. EPA s Ms. Garczynski told Alert that this history demonstrates that EPA has confidence in the state programs. Moreover, Congress placed what might be termed a political restraint on EPA s authority to overfile at a facility where it determines that one of the exceptions to the enforcement bar applies. Within 90 days of the initiation of any enforcement action under one of the exceptions (except for a request by the state), EPA must file a report to Congress describing the basis for the enforcement action, including specific references to the facts demonstrating that enforcement action is permitted under one of the exceptions. 42 U.S.C. 9628(b)(1)(E). Other Observations on the Enforcement Bar An important limitation to the enforcement bar is that it only limits EPA s authority under CERCLA not other federal environmental statutes. For example, where the facility has a leaking underground storage tank ( UST ), EPA retains its authority under the RCRA UST provisions to order corrective action (42 U.S.C. 6991b(h)(4)), or where oil or hazardous substances are being discharged from the facility into navigable waters, a purchaser may have liability under the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1321). The federal enforcement bar only applies to actions against persons who conducted the cleanup. S. REP. NO , 16 (Mar. 21, 2001). Some state voluntary cleanup laws extend statelaw liability protection not only to the person conducting the cleanup, but also to future successors in the chain of title of the property. See, e.g., The Pennsylvania Land Recycling and Remediation Standards Act (aka Act 2 ), 35 P.S (a)(1). A future successor who intends to purchase property with protection from both state and federal enforcement for a release that a previous owner had remediated under such a state cleanup program would need to avail itself of a different federal mechanism, such as bona fide prospective purchaser protection (discussed below). Many state voluntary cleanup laws allow persons to participate in the program, irrespective of their status as a party potentially responsible for the release. Under Pennsylvania s Act 2, for example, any person may clean up the release under the program and qualify for the state law liability protection. See 35 P.S In such a scenario, persons participating in the remediation receive state law liability protection under the state statute, as well as protection from an EPA CERCLA action under the Act s enforcement bar. This, of course, assumes that none of the Act s exceptions or exclusions to the enforcement bar apply. All such exceptions and exclusions, however, are based on the risk associated with the release, not the status of the person performing the cleanup. Finally, the enforcement bar applies on a releaseby-release basis, as opposed to an entire site. There may be separate releases at the same facility that are addressed separately, especially if they occur at different times or have different parties responsible for them. S. REP. NO , 16 (Mar. 21, 2001). This provides persons with 4 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART LLP ENVIRONMENTAL ALERT
5 flexibility to avail themselves of the benefits of the enforcement bar without cleaning up an entire facility. This flexibility, however, is only available to the extent that the underlying state cleanup program allows the persons performing the cleanup to choose to address the facility on a release-by-release basis. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING Background Since 1995, EPA s Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative or Brownfields Initiative has facilitated brownfields redevelopment through funding for environmental assessments, education and training and capitalization of loan funds for brownfields remediation. EPA s fiscal year 2000 budget included $98,000,000 for this effort. Changes Introduced by the Act More Money, More Eligible Facilities and Entities The Act more than doubles that funding to $250,000,000 for each fiscal year through 2006 and requires EPA to establish a competitive application program to select funding recipients. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(12)(A). ($200,000,000 of the funding is for the EPA s competitive grant program while $50,000,000 is for assistance to states for administration of state brownfields programs. 42 U.S.C. 9628(a)(3)). Grants are available for state and local governmental entities and nonprofit organizations while loans are available (through state and local entities) to facility owners and private developers (excluding persons with CERCLA liability at the brownfield site). EPA s Ms. Garczynski, who directs the Brownfields Initiative, notes that, unlike before the Act, petroleum-contaminated facilities such as gasoline stations are now eligible for funding. In fact, $50,000,000 is earmarked each year for such sites (42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(12)(B)). Another important change from the existing program is that quasi-governmental agencies such as community development organizations will now qualify for grants, says Ms. Garczynski. Applicability Brownfield Sites For purposes of funding eligibility, the Act defines brownfield site broadly as real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. 42 U.S.C. 9601(39)(A). The definition specifically excludes:! An NPL facility;! A facility subject to a planned or ongoing CERCLA removal action or CERCLA order;! A facility subject to an order or permit by EPA or authorized state pursuant to RCRA, CWA, TSCA or SDWA;! A facility that is the subject of an RCRA corrective action permit or order or RCRA closure plan;! A federal facility;! A PCB-contaminated facility subject to remediation under TSCA; and! A facility for which assistance has been obtained from the federal Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. 42 U.S.C. 9601(39)(B) (this definition is similar, but not identical, to the definition of eligible response site discussed above in reference to the enforcement bar). Under certain circumstances, EPA may nonetheless authorize brownfields revitalization funding to certain excluded sites if it determines that financial assistance will protect human health and the environment, and either promote economic development or enable the creation of, preservation of, or addition to parks, greenways, undeveloped property, other recreational property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes. 42 U.S.C. 9601(39)(C). FEBRUARY 2002 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP 5
6 Grants for Brownfield Site Characterization and Assessment EPA may make grants to eligible entities for programs to inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct planning related to one or more brownfield sites. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(2)(B)(i). Eligible entities are, in general, state, local or tribal entities. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(1). An environmental assessment of a brownfield site using such funding must be performed in accordance with the all appropriate inquiry standard associated with the innocent landowner defense described below. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(2)(B)(ii) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 9601(35)(B)). Funding is available up to $200,000 per brownfield site. This limitation may be waived by EPA for a grant of up to $350,000 per brownfield site. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(4)(A)(i). Grants and Loans for Brownfield Site Remediation EPA may make grants to eligible entities and nonprofit organizations to be used directly for remediation of brownfield sites owned by such entity or organization, in amounts up to $200,000 per brownfield site. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(3)(A)(ii). EPA may also make grants to eligible entities to be used for capitalization of revolving loan funds, up to $1,000,000 per eligible entity. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(3)(A)(i), 9604(4)(A)(ii). Recipients of such grants shall use the funds to make grants and loans for remediation of brownfield sites. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(3)(B). Grants may be made to other eligible entities and nonprofit organizations to be used for remediation of brownfield sites owned by such entity or organization. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(3)(B)(ii). Loans may be made to facility owners, facility developers or other private parties. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(3)(B)(i). Prohibitions The Act prohibits use of the funds for the payment of:! A penalty or fine;! A federal cost-share requirement;! An administrative cost;! A response cost where the recipient of the grant or loan is a PRP; and! A cost of compliance with federal law, except for compliance with laws applicable to the remediation. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(4)(B). Application and Award Process The Act requires EPA to publish guidance to assist eligible entities in applying for grants and to develop a ranking system for decision-making as to awards. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(5)(A)-(B). The Act identifies 10 criteria for EPA to include in the ranking procedure. Generally, the criteria favor projects that foster economic development, reduction of environmental risk and exposure, reuse of existing infrastructure, preservation of green spaces, local community involvement and protection of sensitive subpopulations. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(5)(C). Eligible entities receiving grants from EPA must contribute a 20% matching share from nonfederal funds or in-kind services, unless EPA determines that such a requirement would pose a hardship on the eligible entity. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(9)(B)(iii). All grants and loans made with the funds must be subject to an agreement which requires the recipient to use the funds for the purposes authorized under the Act and comply with all applicable federal and state laws and which may contain other EPA-required terms and conditions. 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(9). 6 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART LLP ENVIRONMENTAL ALERT
7 Ms. Garczynski told Alert that EPA expects to issue grant application guidance and forms by September 2002 and to be making awards as early as Spring Awards authorized under preexisting CERCLA authority will still be made this year. Entities that have not received awards and that have applications pending will need to reapply when the new program is up and running in September. the material containing hazardous substances contributed by the PRP has contributed significantly or could contribute significantly, either individually or in the aggregate, to the cost of the response action or natural resource restoration; the PRP has failed to comply with an information request or administrative subpoena; or SMALL BUSINESS (AND SMALL SHIPMENTS) LIABILITY PROTECTION The Act exempts from liability certain parties that have long bemoaned the unfairness of being ensnared in the Superfund process: those that have sent very small amounts of waste to a facility and small businesses whose only contribution to a Superfund site were wastes such as office paper and cardboard boxes. De Micromis Exemption The de micromis exemption amends CERCLA to provide relief from response cost liability at an NPL facility to PRPs that contributed limited amounts of material to the facility. To qualify for the exemption:! the PRP cannot have been an owner or operator of the facility;! the material containing hazardous substances that the PRP sent to the facility must be less than 110 gallons of liquid or 200 pounds of solid material; and! all or part of the disposal, treatment or transport at issue must have occurred before April 1, U.S.C. 9607(o)(1). The Act allows EPA to adjust the de micromis threshold quantities up or down by regulation. In addition, the Act provides for exceptions to the exemption where either:! the PRP has been convicted of a crime for the conduct to which the exemption would apply; or! EPA determines that: the PRP has impeded the response action or natural resource restoration associated with the facility. 42 U.S.C. 9607(o)(2). In the case of a contribution action for response costs brought by a private nongovernmental party, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the exemption does not apply. 42 U.S.C. 9607(o)(4). Municipal Solid Waste Exemption The municipal solid waste exemption amends CERCLA to provide relief from generator liability for response costs at a Superfund site to residential, small business and nonprofit PRPs that contributed municipal solid waste to a facility. To qualify for the exemption, the PRP must demonstrate that it is either:! a residential facility owner, operator or lessee;! a small business concern (within the meaning of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.)) with, on average, not more than 100 fulltime employees during the past three taxable years (including the parent, subsidiary or affiliate of the business); or! a 501(c)(3) organization (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) with, on average, not more than 100 paid employees during the past three taxable years at the location from which the municipal solid waste was generated. 42 U.S.C. 9607(p)(1). The exemption for each of the three categories of generators described above only applies where all the municipal solid waste at the Superfund site attributable to the PRP FEBRUARY 2002 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP 7
8 was generated at the residence, small business or nonprofit organization, as applicable. 42 U.S.C. 9607(p)(1). There are also exceptions to the municipal solid waste exemption which parallel the exceptions to the de micromis exemption described above (other than the exception for criminal conviction). 42 U.S.C. 9607(p)(2). EPA s determinations with respect to the exceptions to the exemption are not subject to judicial review. 42 U.S.C. 9607(p)(3). For purposes of this exemption, municipal solid waste is defined as waste material that is either generated by a household or generated by a commercial, industrial, or institutional entity, to the extent that the waste material is, in general, similar in character to household waste. (See the definition of municipal solid waste, along with examples at 42 U.S.C. 9607(p)(4)). In the case of a CERCLA contribution action brought by a private nongovernmental party, the burden is on the party bringing the action to show that the municipal solid waste exemption does not apply and even where a federal, state or local government entity brings an action for response costs under CERCLA 107 or 113, if disposal occurred before April 1, 2001, the burden is on the party bringing the action to show that the municipal solid waste exemption does not apply. 42 U.S.C. 9607(p)(5). Further, with respect to both the de micromis and municipal solid waste exemptions, if a private nongovernmental party brings a CERCLA contribution action against a defendant who is not liable pursuant to one of the exemptions, the party bringing the action is liable for the defendant s costs and fees in defending the action. 42 U.S.C. 9607(p)(7). Both the de micromis and municipal waste exemptions are applicable only to liability under CERCLA for response costs at NPL facilities. The exemptions do not apply to liability at non- NPL facilities, or to liability associated with natural resource damage claims, federal or state statutory causes of action other than CERCLA or common law causes of action. LIABILITY CLARIFICATIONS Innocent Landowner Defense Since CERCLA was amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act ( SARA ), CERCLA has included an innocent landowner affirmative defense, whereby, in general, an owner of a contaminated property would avoid liability if it can demonstrate that it acquired the facility after all disposal of hazardous substances ceased, that it did not know and had no reason to know that hazardous substances were disposed of at the facility, and that at the time of acquisition of the facility, it had made all appropriate inquiry (i.e., conducted environmental due diligence). 42 U.S.C. 9607(b)(3), 9601(35). A review of case law reveals that very few owners have successfully demonstrated the requirements of the innocent landowner defense, partially because no objective standard for all appropriate inquiry has been defined by the statute or regulations. In an attempt to expand the utility of the innocent landowner defense by providing a safe harbor, the Act requires EPA to promulgate, by January 11, 2004, standards and practices which would satisfy the requirement of all appropriate inquiry. 42 U.S.C. 9601(35)(B)(ii). Until such time, the Act provides that, with respect to facilities purchased on or after May 31, 1997, all appropriate inquiry is satisfied by use of the procedures in American Society for Testing and Material ( ASTM ) Standard E Standard Practice for Environmental Facility Assessment: Phase I Environmental Facility Assessment Process. 42 U.S.C. 9601(35)(B)(iv)(II). ASTM s Phase I standard is currently the generally accepted commercial practice for environmental due diligence in transactions of potentially contaminated property. With respect to facilities purchased before May 31, 1997, the Act requires a court, in evaluating whether an owner has satisfied the all appropriate inquiry requirement, to consider: 8 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART LLP ENVIRONMENTAL ALERT
9 ! any specialized knowledge or experience on the part of the owner;! the relationship of the purchase price to the value that the facility would have if it was not contaminated;! commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the facility;! the obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the facility; and! the ability of the owner to detect the contamination by appropriate inspection. 42 U.S.C. 9601(35)(B)(iv)(I). In addition, in order to successfully demonstrate the innocent landowner defense, the owner must cooperate with and assist anyone authorized to conduct a response action at the facility, comply with any land use restrictions and not impede any institutional controls relied on in connection with the response action. 42 U.S.C. 9601(35)(A). Bona Fide Prospective Purchasers Fear of potential CERCLA liability has tempered the willingness of prospective purchasers to buy and redevelop sites which may be contaminated by hazardous substances. To encourage brownfield redevelopment, EPA established a program of negotiating agreements with prospective purchasers on a case-by-case basis which could serve to relieve such purchasers from owner/operator liability under CERCLA. See, Guidance on Agreements With Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Facility and Model Prospective Purchaser Agreement, 60 Fed. Reg (July 3, 1995). The Act allows bona fide prospective purchasers of contaminated property to avoid CERCLA owner/operator liability without the burden of time and resources that have been associated with negotiating a prospective purchaser agreement with EPA. 42 U.S.C. 9607(r)(1). The Act defines bona fide prospective purchaser as a purchaser who acquires ownership of a facility after January 11, 2002, where all releases of hazardous substances occurred before such acquisition, and the purchaser:! made all appropriate inquiries, defined by reference to the innocent landowner defense described above;! provided all required notices with respect to discovery of hazardous substances;! has exercised appropriate care with respect to hazardous substances discovered;! cooperates and assists with anyone authorized to conduct a response action;! complies with all institutional controls relied on in connection with the response action;! complies with CERCLA information requests (such as 104(e) requests) or subpoenas;! has no corporate, financial or contractual affiliation with any PRP at the facility (other than relationships associated with the transfer of title from a PRP to the prospective purchaser, or contracts for the sale of goods or services). 42 U.S.C. 9601(40). Appropriate care generally requires the purchaser to take reasonable steps to stop a continuing release of hazardous substances, prevent any threatened future release and limit human and natural resource exposure to the hazardous substances. See 42 U.S.C. 9601(40)(D). In the event that EPA conducts a cleanup and has unrecovered response costs associated with the facility, the Act provides the United States with a windfall lien against the property (or other form of security as agreed to by the purchaser). The amount of the lien is the unrecovered response cost, or the increase in the fair market value of the facility effectuated by the cleanup, whichever is less. 42 U.S.C. 9607(r)(2). FEBRUARY 2002 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP 9
10 This provision provides prospective purchasers with the liability protection by operation of the statute that it would gain by undertaking the process of negotiating an agreement with EPA. Moreover, the prospective purchaser would avoid the burden of paying tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in consideration that EPA often demands as part of the agreement. However, there may be some situations where a purchaser would benefit from additional protections afforded by an agreement, particularly if the facility at issue is a Superfund site. First, the agreement would provide the purchaser (and its financiers) with certainty that EPA agrees that all the conditions required for bona fide prospective purchaser protection have been satisfied. For example, the agreement may identify a site-specific program of appropriate care for the facility. Second, perhaps the agreement can be used to negotiate with EPA the value of the windfall lien and the form of the security. This provision mitigates a major disincentive to redevelopment of brownfields by providing a prospective purchaser of contaminated property with greater control and certainty with respect to CERCLA liability. An important limitation of this provision, however, is that it only relieves a prospective purchaser of liability under CERCLA not other federal statutes. Contiguous Property Exemption An owner of a facility to which hazardous substances have migrated through subsurface groundwater from a neighboring facility may have CERCLA owner liability, even though such owner did not cause or contribute to the contamination. 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(1). Since 1995, EPA has had a policy limiting enforcement actions against owners of a facility contaminated solely by subsurface migration from off-site and considering entering into de minimis settlements with such persons to provide contribution protection. See, Final Policy Toward Owners of Property Containing Contaminated Aquifers, 60 Fed. Reg (July 3, 1995). The Act codifies and expands on that policy by exempting such persons from CERCLA owner or operator liability, where the person:! did not cause, contribute, or consent to the release of hazardous substances;! has no corporate, financial or contractual affiliation with any PRP (other than contracts for the sale of goods or services);! takes reasonable steps to stop a continuing release of hazardous substances, prevent any threatened future release and limit human and natural resource exposure to the hazardous substances;! cooperates and assists with anyone authorized to conduct a response action;! complies with any land use restrictions and not impede any institutional controls relied on in connection with the response action;! complies with CERCLA information requests or subpoenas;! provides all required notices with respect to discovery of hazardous substances; and! at the time of acquisition of the facility, made all appropriate inquiries as defined with reference to the innocent landowner defense described above, and did not know or have reason to know that the property was or could be contaminated by a release of hazardous substances from other real property. 42 U.S.C. 9607(q)(1)(A). 10 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART LLP ENVIRONMENTAL ALERT
11 The Act clarifies that reasonable steps do not require the owner to conduct any groundwater monitoring or groundwater remediation, unless the owner operates a groundwater well which may affect the migration of contamination in the affected aquifer. 42 U.S.C. 9607(q)(1)(D). The Act also allows EPA to issue a no enforcement action letter to a person who qualifies for the contiguous property exemption and to grant such a person contribution protection. 42 U.S.C. 9607(q)(3). A person who cannot demonstrate all of the requirements for the contiguous property exemption as listed above may still potentially qualify as an innocent landowner or bona fide prospective purchaser. 42 U.S.C. 9607(q)(1)(C), 9607(q)(2)(A). Comparison of Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser with Innocent Landowner and Contiguous Property Owner The liability relief for bona fide prospective purchasers is strictly prospective it applies only to persons who purchase a facility after January 11, 2002, whereas a person may assert the innocent landowner defense or demonstrate the contiguous property exemption irrespective of when the facility was purchased. Moreover, unlike an innocent landowner and contiguous property owner, a bone fide prospective purchaser may have knowledge of the presence of hazardous substances at the facility associated with past releases prior to purchase. KENNETH S. KOMOROSKI kkomoroski@kl.com MELODY A. HAMEL mhamel@kl.com FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please consult one of the lawyers listed below. HARRISBURG R. Timothy Weston tweston@kl.com PITTSBURGH Kenneth S. Komoroski kkomoroski@kl.com Melody A. Hamel mhamel@kl.com WASHINGTON Barry M. Hartman bhartman@kl.com BOSTON! DALLAS! HARRISBURG! LOS ANGELES! MIAMI! NEWARK! NEW YORK! PITTSBURGH! SAN FRANCISCO! WASHINGTON... This publication/newsletter is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be used or relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting with a lawyer. FEBRUARY KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 11 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP
12 75 State Street Boston, Massachusetts TEL FAX Bank One Center 1717 Main Street Dallas, Texas TEL FAX Payne Shoemaker Building 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania TEL FAX Santa Monica Boulevard Seventh Floor Los Angeles, California TEL FAX Miami Center - 20th Floor 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida TEL FAX The Legal Center One Riverfront Plaza, Seventh Floor Newark, New Jersey TEL FAX Avenue Of The Americas 45th Floor New York, New York TEL FAX Henry W. Oliver Building 535 Smithfield Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania TEL FAX Four Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, California TEL FAX Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Second Floor Washington, D.C TEL FAX KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART LLP ENVIRONMENTAL ALERT
George L. Seay, Jr. Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP 250 West Main Street, Suite 1600 Lexington, KY (859)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( Superfund ) and Kentucky House Bill 465: Exemptions and Protection From Liability George L. Seay, Jr. Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs,
More informationNew Loopholes or Minor Adjustments? A Summary and Evaluation of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act
Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 20 Issue 1 Symposium Edition Article 15 January 2003 New Loopholes or Minor Adjustments? A Summary and Evaluation of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
More informationVapor Intrusion Bases for Legal Liability and Defenses
Vapor Intrusion Bases for Legal Liability and Defenses Jay A. Tufano Attorney Ring Bender LLLP What is Vapor Intrusion? Vapor intrusion is the general term given to migration of hazardous vapors from any
More informationBona Fide Prospective Purchaser How to be a BFPP. Overview
Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser How to be a BFPP Linda C. Martin and Michael C. Wofford Doerner, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson, L.L.P. Overview What is a BFPP? Why bother with being a BFPP? Potential Superfund
More informationContaminated Property Transactions After 2002 Superfund Brownfield Amendments
Articles Contaminated Property Transactions After 2002 Superfund Brownfield Amendments by Brad Cahoon Earlier this year, the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act 1 ( Brownfield
More informationBrownfields Redevelopment and the. Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP and The National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals
Brownfields Redevelopment and the Threat of CERCLA Liability Elaine C. Lippmann Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP and The National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals October 19, 2009 Agenda
More informationDISTRESSING ASSETS: LENDERS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY-IMPACTED COLLATERAL. By: John Slavich
DISTRESSING ASSETS: LENDERS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY-IMPACTED COLLATERAL By: John Slavich This article will focus on the complicating issues that arise for lenders when property held as collateral is, or is
More informationLIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
LIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL INDEMNITY AGREEMENT This LIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL INDEMNITY AGREEMENT is entered into as of the day of, 2011, by ("Indemnitor") and the City of (the "City"). RECITALS A. WHEREAS, Indemnitor
More informationLegal Liability and the Reuse of Contaminated Soil. Minnesota Brownfields Forum
Legal Liability and the Reuse of Contaminated Soil Minnesota Brownfields Forum Sara J. Peterson April 17, 2008 1 2007 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP Topics Impact of liability concerns on off-site reuse Sources
More informationApplication for the Voluntary Remediation Program
FACT SHEET # 3 Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) (307) 777-7752 http://deq.state.wy.us/volremedi/index.asp Application for the Voluntary Remediation Program In its 2000 session, the Wyoming Legislature
More informationENVIRONMENTAL DUE DILIGENCE AND REMEDIAL PROGRAMS AND INSURANCE THAT CAN SAVE A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DUE DILIGENCE AND REMEDIAL PROGRAMS AND INSURANCE THAT CAN SAVE A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION May 2018 By: Keith H. Johnson Poyner Spruill LLP kjohnson@poyners.com INDEX Page I. Why Environmental
More informationOUR WORK. SUPERFUND, COST RECOVERY AND CONTRIBUTION - Overview
SUPERFUND, COST RECOVERY AND CONTRIBUTION - Overview We have represented clients in all types of Superfund matters, including as PRPs at multi-party disposal sites, as both plaintiffs and defendants in
More informationManaging Environmental Liabilities in Contracting and Leasing
Managing Environmental Liabilities in Contracting and Leasing AAPA Port Administration and Legal Issues Seminar Micheal W. Dobbs Bill Jackson Environmental Risk Disruption of operations on the property
More informationSECURED CREDITORS: Exempt from Liability?
SECURED CREDITORS: Exempt from Liability? Bert Acken * INTRODUCTION Secured creditors can be exempted from liability for contamination from properties for which they hold security interests under the Comprehensive
More informationRestructuring Among the Ruins Conference Athens, Greece May 7-9, 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
Restructuring Among the Ruins Conference Athens, Greece May 7-9, 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS Daniel M. Glosband, Esq. Macken Toussaint, Esq. Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange
More informationReleases & Real Estate & Risk
Releases & Real Estate & Risk Presented By: Jason A. Wiles, Esq. NISTM Albany, New York 1 PURPOSE 2 CONTAMINATED REAL ESTATE Forget the 3 L s : LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION With Commercial Real Estate:
More informationRCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline Training Module
United States Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W) EPA540-R-98-028 OSWER9205.5-13A PB98-963 236 June 1998 RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline Training Module Introduction
More informationGOING FROM BROWN TO GREEN
I have this great project. I found the perfect location. It might be contaminated Now what do I do? 1 GOING FROM BROWN TO GREEN TCEQ Brownfields Program 2013 TCEQ programs to help clean up your site 2
More informationLegal Update on Environmental Diligence and NYSDEC Draft Environmental Audit Policy
MTA New York City Transit Advanced Environmental Workshop Jesse Hiney, Esq. December 2012 Legal Update on Environmental Diligence and NYSDEC Draft Environmental Audit Policy Where Are We? Nixon Peabody
More informationOverview: The CERCLA Process. Connie Sue Martin
Overview: The CERCLA Process Connie Sue Martin Overview Removal and/or Remediation Process Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
More informationBrownfields Redevelopment and Voluntary Cleanups in. Oklahoma
Brownfields Redevelopment and Voluntary Cleanups in Oklahoma Rita R. Kottke, Ph.D. Barbara Rauch, Esq. May 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 3 OKLAHOMA VOLUNTARY CLEANUP (VCP) and BROWNFIELDS PROGRAMS...
More informationMBL 1800 Environmental Procedures
MBL 1800 Procedures Effective: October 13, 2013 Departments Impacted Business Services Introduction The following guidelines have been designed to minimize the credit unions exposure to environmental risk.
More informationUpdate on Environmental Liability in Real Estate Transactions
Update on Environmental Liability in Real Estate Transactions Watch-Outs and Best Practices for the General Practice Lawyer Environment, Energy and Resources Law Section What You ll Learn This Morning
More informationTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW Presented: 49th Annual William W. Gibson, Jr. Mortgage Lending Institute Austin on September 17-18, 2015, at the AT&T Conference Center, and in Dallas on November
More informationMilitary Base Closures: Role and Costs of Environmental Cleanup
Order Code RS22065 Updated August 31, 2007 Military Base Closures: Role and Costs of Environmental Cleanup Summary David M. Bearden Specialist in Environmental Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division
More informationDRAFT Addressing Backlogs DRAFT 8/27/2007
Topic: Addressing Backlogs Description of Issue: There are over 18,000 cases in Site Remediation s database. Approximately 12,000 of these cases are being remediated under a regulatory program such as
More informationTallahassee Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Coalition
Tallahassee Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Coalition The Tallahassee Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Coalition (BFC), comprised of the City of Tallahassee and the Tallahassee Community Redevelopment Agency,
More informationEnvironmental, Safety & Toxic Torts. Practice Overview
Environmental, Safety & Toxic Torts Practice Overview Environmental, Safety & Toxic Torts Businesses today are confronted with a complex web of environmental and safety concerns, ranging from contaminated
More informationDare You to Buy. Kristin White, Associate Legal Counsel Minnesota Department of Transportation
Dare You to Buy Kristin White, Associate Legal Counsel Minnesota Department of Transportation NOTES Why the worry? Environmental law 101 What your organization can do Why the worry? Removal/remediation
More informationGroundwater Contamination Litigation: Proving and Defending Against Liability
Groundwater Contamination Litigation: Proving and Defending Against Liability Demonstrating Nexus, Causation and Injury to Recover Cleanup Costs and Other Damages OCTOBER 10, 2013 Presented by Alfred E.
More informationMTBE: Coverage For This "Spreading" Problem
Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Soils, Sediments, Water and Energy Volume 11 Article 11 January 2010 MTBE: Coverage For This "Spreading" Problem John N. Ellison ESQ Anderson Kill
More informationTURNING BROWN INTO GREEN: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LENDERS AND BUYERS OF CONTAMINATED PROPERTY IN A RED ECONOMY
TURNING BROWN INTO GREEN: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LENDERS AND BUYERS OF CONTAMINATED PROPERTY IN A RED ECONOMY By Deborah K. Tellier, John J. Gregory, and Mathew J. Swain 2009 All Rights Reserved.
More informationEconomic Incentives to Encourage Brownfields Redevelopment in New Jersey
Economic Incentives to Encourage Brownfields Redevelopment in New Jersey Publication: Metropolitan Corporate Counsel On January 6, 1998, New Jersey's Governor Christine Whitman signed into law the Brownfield
More informationPart 201 reforms to move Michigan forward
Part 201 reforms to move Michigan forward In 1995, the Michigan legislature enacted Part 201 which, among other changes, fundamentally shifted Michigan s liability standard from strict liability to causation-based.
More informationENVIRONMENTAL NEWS & HIGHLIGHTS July 2016
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS & HIGHLIGHTS July 2016 Presented by: EXCALIBUR GROUP, LLC Environmental Consultants, Engineers & Liability Management Experts This latest EXCALIBUR bulletin presents several emerging
More informationSENATE, No. 806 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 217th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2016 SESSION
SENATE, No. 0 STATE OF NEW JERSEY th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 0 SESSION Sponsored by: Senator LORETTA WEINBERG District (Bergen) Senator ROBERT M. GORDON District (Bergen and Passaic)
More informationEVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF STATE VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PROGRAMS: A PROGRAM ANALYSIS OF ILLINOIS, NEW YORK AND TENNESSEE. Keith A.
EVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF STATE VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PROGRAMS: A PROGRAM ANALYSIS OF ILLINOIS, NEW YORK AND TENNESSEE by Keith A. Herrmann Date: Approved: Dr. Deborah Gallagher, Advisor Masters project submitted
More informationPollution Exposures an a d n d Co C ve v r e a r g a e g s e
Pollution Exposures and Coverages Video Presentation Introduction of Pollution Exposures Pollution Exposures and Coverages Section 1 Overview of the Pollution Exposure What are Pollution Exposures? Site
More informationEnvironmental Liabilities and PRP Insolvency Managing Environmental Obligations and Meeting Remediation Requirements
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Environmental Liabilities and PRP Insolvency Managing Environmental Obligations and Meeting Remediation Requirements THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 2013 1pm
More informationSECTION PS 3260 liability for contaminated sites
SECTION PS 3260 liability for contaminated sites TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph Purpose and scope.01-.07 Recognition.08-.39 Environmental standard.09-.13 Contamination.14-.17 Direct responsibility.18-.22
More informationENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS
FUNDAMENTALS OF REAL ESTATE LAW WORKSHOP ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS Presented by Polly B. Jessen, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell March 7, 2018 Environmental Issues 2 Contamination Poses
More informationSpill Response What will you do? Jim Santino, May 12, 2011
Spill Response What will you do? Jim Santino, May 12, 2011 Many facilities use chemicals or other materials in their daily business processes that if released into the work environment may cause risk to
More informationCHAPTER Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1018
CHAPTER 2017-95 Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1018 An act relating to pollution; creating s. 403.076, F.S.; providing a short title; creating s. 403.077, F.S.; defining
More informationSeven Things Informed. Lenders Should Know About Environmental Due Diligence
Seven Things Informed 1 Lenders Should Know About Environmental Due Diligence EDR Webinar Wednesday, April 13, 2016 Grady L. Shields Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP 4101 Lake Boone Trail, Suite 300 Raleigh,
More informationCHAPTER House Bill No. 1123
CHAPTER 2003-173 House Bill No. 1123 An act relating to site rehabilitation of contaminated sites; creating s. 376.30701, F.S.; extending application of risk-based corrective action principles to all contaminated
More informationCity of Rolling Hills INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
City of Rolling Hills INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Permit requirements and application for collection and disposal
More informationSussman Shank. attorneys. Contractual Tools for Allocating Liability. Patrick G. Rowe
Sussman Shank attorneys llp Contractual Tools for Allocating Liability Patrick G. Rowe 2016 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 1400 Portland Oregon 97205 503.227.1111 CONTRACTUAL TOOLS FOR MITIGATING & ALLOCATING
More informationTEXAS EHS AUDIT PRIVILEGE ACT EPA SELF-DISCLOSURE POLICIES
February 11, 2016 TEXAS EHS AUDIT PRIVILEGE ACT EPA SELF-DISCLOSURE POLICIES Joseph F. Guida Guida, Slavich & Flores, P.C. 750 N. St. Paul, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 214.692.0014 guida@gsfpc.com TEXAS ENVIRONMENTAL,
More informationTo link to this article:
This article was downloaded by: [71.50.106.141] On: 17 June 2015, At: 06:37 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
More informationCONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT (Hazardous Material Assessment/ Abatement Consulting Services)
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT (Hazardous Material Assessment/ Abatement Consulting Services) This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of in the year 20 ( EFFECTIVE DATE ), between the Los Alamitos
More informationRenewable Energy Development, Including on Brownfield Properties. Topics to be Covered
// 2015 National CLE Conference ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LAND USE, ENERGY AND LITIGATION FACULTY INFORMATION Renewable Energy Development, Including on Brownfield Properties Presented by Polly Jessen Kaplan
More informationPriority qualified facility spending- Closed Landfill Investment Fund
Landfill January 2018 Priority qualified facility spending- Closed Landfill Investment Fund Report to the Legislature Legislative charge 2017 Minnesota Session Laws, Chp. 93, Art. 1, Sec. 2, subd. 6(e):
More informationBrownfield Redevelopment Resources Technical, Legal, Financial Assistance
Brownfield Redevelopment Resources Technical, Legal, Financial Assistance Environmental Stewardship. Economic Development. Michele Oertel Federal Funding & Community Relations Coordinator 317-234-0235
More informationENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS THAT HELP REDEVELOPMENT
11 th Annual Land Use Planning Law Conference Hyatt Regency Hotel, Austin April 12-13, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS THAT HELP REDEVELOPMENT Patrick J. Larkin Partner Strasburger & Price, LLP 901 Main Street,
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2003 SESSION LAW HOUSE BILL 897
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2003 SESSION LAW 2003-352 HOUSE BILL 897 AN ACT TO IMPROVE THE SOLVENCY OF THE COMMERCIAL LEAKING PETROLEUM UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND AND THE NONCOMMERCIAL
More informationJoan P. Snyder, Esq. Stoel Rives LLP (503)
Allocation of Liability at a Sediment Cleanup Site by Joan P. Snyder, Esq. Stoel Rives LLP jpsnyder@stoel.com (503) 294-9657 Types of Costs to Recover EPA and DEQ site assessment and oversight Remedial
More informationPermit for Filming within the Municipality of Skagway Borough
Permit for Filming within the Municipality of Skagway Borough This Filming Permit Agreement ( Agreement ) is between a ( Permittee ) and the Municipality of Skagway Borough (the MOS ) with regard to an
More informationSUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT INVITATION TO BID. No. 17/18-009EO
SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT INVITATION TO BID No. 17/18-009EO PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT FOR ROCK BLUFF SPRINGS, LLC TRACT 172.30 ACRES ±, IN GILCHRIST COUNTY Table of Contents
More informationAMERICAN INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES POLLUTION LEGAL LIABILITY APPLICATION
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES Name of Insurance Company to which Application is made (herein called the Company) POLLUTION LEGAL LIABILITY APPLICATION THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A CLAIMS -MADE POLICY
More informationInsurance Claims for Recovery of Environmental Cleanup Costs
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D-2 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel. +1.714.770.8040 Web: www.aquilogic.com April 2014 Insurance Claims for Recovery of Environmental Cleanup Costs Introduction Environmental Damage
More informationREGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT (RIS)
Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Office of Regulatory Reinvention 611 W. Ottawa Street; 2nd Floor, Ottawa Building PO Box 30004; Lansing, MI 48909 Phone: (517) 335-8658 FAX: (517)
More informationCERCLA s Equitable Allocation Of Liability
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com CERCLA s Equitable Allocation Of Liability
More informationENVIRONMENTAL LAW SECTION
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROPOSED EXTENSION AND REFORM OF THE BROWNFIELD CLEANUP PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW SECTION Environmental #2-A January 8, 2015 Following a panel discussion at the
More informationEmerging Challenges on the Administrative Side of Superfund Practice 1. Prepared by: David C. Batson and Walter Mugdan
Emerging Challenges on the Administrative Side of Superfund Practice 1 Prepared by: David C. Batson and Walter Mugdan Superfund Master Class: Today s Issues and Tomorrow s Reforms June 15, 2016 / Chicago,
More informationLENDER LIABILITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION IN THE FORECLOSURE CONTEXT
LENDER LIABILITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION IN THE FORECLOSURE CONTEXT By Stacy Watson May* and Dawn Carsten** I knew the recession was truly affecting Florida s economy when lenders started asking
More information[First Reprint] SENATE, No STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 218th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED FEBRUARY 15, 2018
[First Reprint] SENATE, No. STATE OF NEW JERSEY th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED FEBRUARY, 0 Sponsored by: Senator LORETTA WEINBERG District (Bergen) Senator JOSEPH A. LAGANA District (Bergen and Passaic) SYNOPSIS
More informationCHAPTER 31 - HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ORDINANCE OF DUBUQUE COUNTY, IOWA. Adopted October 26, 1987 Amended October 19, Part 1 Introduction...
CHAPTER 31 - HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ORDINANCE OF DUBUQUE COUNTY, IOWA Adopted October 26, 1987 Amended October 19, 2009 Table of Contents Page Part 1 Introduction...2 31-1 Purpose...2 31-2 Definitions...2
More informationOSHA to Offer Alternative Dispute Resolution for Whistleblower Complaints
November 12, 2012 OSHA to Offer Alternative Dispute Resolution for Whistleblower Complaints Employers should evaluate whether new whistleblower complaints are eligible for the initiative, which provides
More informationCOMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CA M E M O R A N D U M ROBERT R. OVROM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CA M E M O R A N D U M 10 DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2004 CN3320 TO: FROM: RESPONSIBLE PARITES: SUBJECT: AGENCY COMMISSIONERS ROBERT R. OVROM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
More informationInsurance Coverage for Governmental Investigations of Financial Institutions
NOVEMBER 2005 Insurance Coverage Insurance Coverage for Governmental Investigations of Financial Institutions By David T. Case and Matthew L. Jacobs 1 Over the last few years, many companies in the financial
More informationTotal Number of Locations: Is the mailing address above a covered location? YES NO
Site Pollution Impairment Legal Liability (SPILL TM ) Application Coverage is available on a claims made basis This application is NOT an insurance policy and the insurance company affording coverage reserves
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Department of Environmental Protection. Kenneth B. Hayman, Presiding Officer.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA FT INVESTMENTS, INC., v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO.
More informationBC CONTAMINATED SITES 101 & CONSULTANT LIABILITY. Charles Bois, Tony Crossman, Sarah Hansen, Jonathan Hodes February 24, 2014
BC CONTAMINATED SITES 101 & CONSULTANT LIABILITY Charles Bois, Tony Crossman, Sarah Hansen, Jonathan Hodes February 24, 2014 AGENDA Canadian Contaminated Sites Regulation BC Federal Liability of Consultants
More informationSemi-Annual Report to the North Carolina General Assembly
Semi-Annual Report to the North Carolina General Assembly The Status of Leaking Petroleum Underground Storage Tanks, the State Cleanup Funds, and the Groundwater Protection Loan Fund September 1, 2002
More informationSociety of Texas Environmental Professionals April 25, 2014 Fort Worth, Texas REGULATORY TOOLS: VCP, DCRP, IOP, MSD and BROWNFIELDS. Dick Record, P.G.
Society of Texas Environmental Professionals April 25, 2014 Fort Worth, Texas REGULATORY TOOLS: VCP, DCRP, IOP, MSD and BROWNFIELDS Dick Record, P.G. Cirrus Associates, L.L.C. Dallas/Houston Agencies that
More informationACE TANKSAFE APPLICATION. Storage Tank Liability Insurance Policy. Instructions:
Instructions: APPLICATION ACE TANKSAFE Storage Tank Liability Insurance Policy Please type or print clearly. Answer ALL questions completely, leaving no blanks. If any questions, or part thereof, do not
More informationSTATE PROGRAMS TO CLEAN UP DRYCLEANERS
STATE PROGRAMS TO CLEAN UP DRYCLEANERS STATE PROGRAMS TO CLEAN UP DRYCLEANERS Prepared by State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Authors Robin Schmidt (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)
More informationManaging Risks with Hazardous Substances. DPLE 154 May 17, 2017
Managing Risks with Hazardous Substances DPLE 154 May 17, 2017 RLI Design Professionals is a Registered Provider with The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems. Credit earned on
More informationLender Beware: Navigating the Superfund safe harbor during workouts and foreclosures.
Lender Beware: Navigating the Superfund safe harbor during workouts and foreclosures. By Jeffrey Gracer and Christine Leas July 14, 2008 Virtually every financial institution is aware that a borrower's
More informationVillage of Mount Gilead, Ohio Brownfields Assessment Cooperative Agreement [Hazardous Substances]
Village of Mount Gilead, Ohio Brownfields Assessment Cooperative Agreement [Hazardous Substances] Work plan for the CERCLA Authority; 104(k)(2) Project/Budget Period: 10/01/14 09/30/17 This project supports:
More informationInternal Revenue Code Section 512(b)(6) Unrelated Business Taxable Income
Internal Revenue Code Section 512(b)(6) Unrelated Business Taxable Income... CLICK HERE to return to the home page (b) Modifications. The modifications referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
More informationIN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 115th Cong., 1st Sess. S. 822
AMENDMENT NO.llll Purpose: In the nature of a substitute. Calendar No.lll IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES th Cong., st Sess. S. To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
More informationTips for Maximizing Your Insurance Recovery for Contaminated Sites
Tips for Maximizing Your Insurance Recovery for Contaminated Sites An Overview of Key Issues and Steps You Can Take Megan Brillault Nicole Weinstein July 10, 2018 Agenda Environmental coverage overview
More informationSEMS-RM DOCID #
I. PURPOSE U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection National Priorities List Deferral Agreement Anaconda Copper Mine Site, Lyon County, Nevada SEMS-RM DOCID
More informationAon Risk Solutions THE USE OF CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE TO INCREASE CERTAINTY IN CONTAMINATED PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS
Aon Risk Solutions THE USE OF CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE TO INCREASE CERTAINTY IN CONTAMINATED PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Overarching Environmental
More informationWhite Collar Crime / Criminal Defense
APRIL 2005 White Collar Crime / Criminal Defense Has United States v. Booker Closed the Book on Corporate Compliance Programs and Voluntary Cooperation? With respect to corporations, perhaps the single
More informationWASHAKIE COUNTY STANDARD CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
WASHAKIE COUNTY STANDARD CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FEBRUARY 2016 PREPARED BY: DAVID W. ANDERSON, PELS WASHAKIE COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE 1001 BIG HORN AVE, STE 107 WORLAND, WY 82401 (307) 347-6778 2/19/2016 TABLE
More informationOverview of the New York State Brownfields Cleanup Program
Overview of the New York State Brownfields Cleanup Program June 2008 Thomas P. DiNapoli New York State Comptroller In an effort to reduce the costs of printing, please notify the Office of Budget and Policy
More informationAny environmental surveys/assessments/audits conducted within the past at any of the locations to be considered
Site Pollution Impairment Legal Liability (SPILL) TM Application Coverage is available on a claims made basis This application is T an insurance policy and the insurance company affording coverage reserves
More informationOffice of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), ODUSD (I&E)
Guidance For Recognizing, Measuring and Reporting Environmental Liabilities Not Eligible for Defense Environmental Restoration Program Funding Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations
More information13 LC Senate Bill 176 By: Senators Tolleson of the 20th, Ginn of the 47th and Davis of the 22nd A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
Senate Bill 176 By: Senators Tolleson of the 20th, Ginn of the 47th and Davis of the 22nd A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 To amend Chapter 8 of Title 12 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated,
More informationBy Philip Gitlen and Robert Rosborough. I. Factual Background
Subsequent Owners of a Former Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facility Are Not Strictly Liable to Financially Guarantee Cleanup Under RCRA By Philip Gitlen and Robert Rosborough Is the
More informationDRAFT LIENS AND SUPERLIENS
DRAFT LIENS AND SUPERLIENS I. Definition of Liens and Superliens A lien is a legal claim against the title of property to secure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation. Once such a claim
More informationVIRTUE GUARD VIRTUE RISK PARTNERS
VIRTUE GUARD VIRTUE RISK PARTNERS www.virtuerisk.com RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR STORAGE TANK & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAIRMENT LIABILITY INSURANCE This renewal application is for an insurance policy providing coverage
More informationCompensation & Benefits
Compensation & Benefits DECEMBER 2004 Internal Revenue Service Issues Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan Guidance On December 20, 2004, the Internal Revenue Service issued Notice 2005-1. The Notice
More informationTake Notice of This Change: Supreme Court Adopts Recommended Amendments to Bankruptcy Notice of Payment Change Rule
19 May 2016 Practice Groups: Restructuring & Insolvency Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Take Notice of This Change: Supreme Court Adopts Recommended Amendments to Bankruptcy Notice of Payment
More informationNew York Court of Appeals Rules on Brownfield Eligibility. By Larry Schnapf
New York Court of Appeals Rules on Brownfield Eligibility By Larry Schnapf On February 18, 2010, the New York State Court of Appeals handed down its longawaited decision in Lighthouse Pointe Property Associates
More information2016 OSB Environmental & Natural Resource Section Annual CLE. CERCLA Update. Patrick Rowe. October 14, 2016
2016 OSB Environmental & Natural Resource Section Annual CLE CERCLA Update Patrick Rowe October 14, 2016 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 1400 Portland Oregon 97205 503.227.1111 sussmanshank.com AIRBORNE RELEASE
More informationProduct Liabilities You Never Anticipated: A California Prop. 65 Executive Briefing. Malcolm Weiss May 28, 2008
Product Liabilities You Never Anticipated: A California Prop. 65 Executive Briefing Malcolm Weiss May 28, 2008 Presenter Malcolm Weiss www.huntonprop65.com 2 California Environmental Practice Growing and
More informationRequest for Proposals (RFP) For Services as General Counsel San Gabriel River Discovery Center Authority
Request for Proposals (RFP) For Services as General Counsel San Gabriel River Discovery Center Authority 1. PURPOSE The Board (Board) of the San Gabriel River Discovery Center Authority (the Authority
More information