|
Earlier this year, the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act1 ("Brownfield amendments") amended the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act2 ("CERCLA"). This was the most significant revision to CERCLA since the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. The Brownfield amendments provide important new liability relief to buyers and developers of contaminated property.
Unfortunately, managing environmental liability risk associated with redeveloping contaminated properties under the Brownfield amendments is not a bed of roses and still resembles
placing lipstick on a pig - all the snakes in the grass have not been removed. Several federal environmental statutes besides CERCLA pose environmental liability risk, including the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),3 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),4 and Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA),5 among others.
Further, Utah environmental statutes, such as the Hazardous Substances Mitigation Act6 (HSMA) and the Underground Storage Tank Act7 (USTA), patterned after
CERCLA and RCRA, respectively, also pose significant environmental liability risk. The Brownfield amendments do not reduce the liability risk posed by these federal and state
environmental statutes and extensive regulations promulgated thereunder. Moreover, there are several significant elements of the Brownfield amendments that could disrupt the "comfort
level" of buyers and developers and may lead to future litigation and seriously contested rulemaking.
CERCLA and the Brownfield amendments reflect two important policies. One
policy forbids saddling taxpayers with the significant cost of cleaning up contaminated properties. Another policy supports returning idled, contaminated property to productive use and
revitalizing urban and industrial areas. Some have viewed as a failure the liability policy behind CERCLA of imposing cleanup costs on those who benefit or benefited from owning or
operating contaminated property. Others have observed that lawyers are among the few who benefited from CERCLA's extensive litigation - a super retirement fund of sorts for environmental
attorneys. Many properties, such as the Sharon Steel Midvale, Utah Superfund site, situated in ideal industrial and commercial locations near urban centers, sit idle providing no jobs,
tax revenue, or public amenities for our community. Many of these stigmatized properties have become abandoned, weed-invested eyesores with ongoing operation and maintenance burdens
heaped upon state and local governments.
Because CERCLA liability is potentially so massive and can be incurred unknowingly, many buyers and developers have shied away from
impaired properties and focused on open spaces and greenfields. This strategy has contributed to urban sprawl, suburbanization, air and water pollution, contemporary smart growth and open
space preservation movements and tremendous tension in local zoning and land use proceedings.
Contaminated property redevelopment projects, such as the Intermountain Health Care
medical center presently being constructed on the former Murray Smelter Superfund site in Utah, demonstrate the tremendous potential for revitalizing the urban, industrial cores of our
communities and returning these impaired properties to productive use.
Due Diligence After Brownfield Amendments
The Brownfield amendments require great care during the
due diligence process prior to acquisition and in crafting environmental liability provisions in transaction documents. Prior to the Brownfield amendments, pursuant to CERCLA
Subsection107, a person who knowingly purchased property contaminated with hazardous substances was strictly, jointly and severally liable for the costs of cleaning up the contamination.8 Moreover, an owner or operator of property that became contaminated solely by migration of hazardous substances from a neighbor's contiguous property could be liable for cleanup costs.9
For contaminated properties purchased after January 1, 2002 and for contiguous landowners affected by migrating pollution, the Brownfield amendments remove liability if by a
preponderance of the evidence certain conditions are satisfied.10 Hence, careful due diligence must be completed before closing a purchase in order to maintain the liability protection afforded so-called "bona fide prospective purchasers" (BFPPs) who knowingly purchase contaminated property or whose property becomes contaminated by migrating hazardous substances from contiguous property.
The Brownfield amendments modified the "all appropriate inquiry" prong of the innocent landowner defense. Pursuant to the Brownfield amendments, all appropriate inquiry
begins with conducting an environmental site assessment satisfying the 1997 Standard E1527-97, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Process ("Phase I") of the American Society for Testing and Materials ("ASTM").11 Strangely, the Brownfield amendments did not adopt ASTM's updated E 1527-00 Phase I standard adopted in 2000. Purchasers should ensure that their environmental consultants at least satisfy the 1997 Phase I standard in conducting pre-purchase assessments. The 1997 Phase I standard applies to all purchases that closed on or after May 31, 1997 and until EPA promulgates a new standard on or before January 11, 2004.12
Prior to the Brownfield amendments, it was unclear whether a purchaser who discovered contamination during due diligence still establish the innocent landowner defense to
CERCLA liability. The Brownfield amendments extended liability protection to such BFPPs if certain additional requirements are met. In addition to satisfying the all appropriate inquiry,
BFPPs also should ensure that they document several conditions prior to closing to secure liability protection. BFPPs should document that (i) all disposal of hazardous substances took
place before they closed their purchase, (ii) they provided all legally required notices concerning their discovery of or any release of hazardous substances, and (iii) they are not
affiliated with any person or entity who is potentially liable for any release of hazardous substances on the purchased property.13
Unfortunately, the Brownfield
amendments impose additional post-closing requirements on BFPPs and contiguous landowners that have the potential for displacing the liability protection. BFPPs and contiguous landowners
must document that they exercised appropriate care over hazardous substances found at the facility by taking "reasonable steps" (whatever that means) to (i) stop any continuing
release, (ii) prevent any threatened future release, and (iii) prevent or limit human, environmental, or natural resource exposure to any previously released hazardous substance.
Depending on many uncertain conditions and possible interpretations, these mitigation requirements could become significant and costly. In addition, purchasers and contiguous landowners
must document that they complied with institutional controls restricting land use to commercial or industrial or that limit penetrating subsurface soils or groundwater and the like. They
must cooperate with and provide assistance and access (without compensation) to anyone authorized to conduct cleanup activities on the property. They also must appropriately respond to
information requests and agency subpoenas.14
One possible approach to bringing some level of certainty to the reasonable mitigation steps and institutional controls is
to include provisions in a pre-purchase agreement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). For example,
purchasers could consider a prospective purchaser agreement for a Superfund site listed on the National Priorities List. For a non-Superfund site, purchasers could consider a consent
agreement for a RCRA site or a voluntary cleanup agreement with UDEQ. These types of agreements could specify what reasonable mitigation steps and institutional controls the regulators
will require, if any, and how purchasers must satisfy them.
This approach may be wishful thinking for several reasons. Contiguous landowners usually do not have the luxury of
completing an agreement before they encounter migrating pollution. Further, EPA is taking the position that prospective purchaser agreements are no longer needed after the Brownfield
amendments, except in unique circumstances when important public interests are served.15 Moreover, UDEQ has been extremely reluctant to modify its form voluntary cleanup agreement that currently provides little if any clarity for mitigation steps or institutional control compliance. Completing such agreements can take a precious long time that many purchasers cannot sustain. EPA and UDEQ should consider amending their regulatory programs to clarify reasonable mitigation steps and institutional control compliance.
The Brownfield amendments extended enhanced protection to individuals who purchase residential property. As long as they conduct a property inspection and title search,
individuals who purchase residential property receive liability protection without having to comply with any other requirement such as the reasonable mitigation steps and compliance with
institutional controls. They also are excused from conducting a Phase I assessment prior to their purchase.16
In addition, purchasers should be aware that the BFPP
liability exemption includes the possibility that the federal government may impose a lien on the purchased property to compensate the government for any unrecovered cleanup costs it
incurred which had the effect of increasing the fair market value of the purchased property.17 Such liens are intended to prevent purchasers from receiving a windfall from government funded cleanups.
Utah Legislature Should Consider Amending its Environmental Laws
The Utah legislature should consider amending HSMA and USTA to protect prospective purchasers and
contiguous landowners. HSMA and USTA provide no protection to residential property purchasers. Under current Utah law, persons who knowingly purchase contaminated property are strictly
but not jointly and severally liable for the costs of cleaning up the contamination, with one exception. If UDEQ conducts an emergency response under HSMA, a single responsible party may
be held jointly and severally liable for all cleanup costs.18
The Utah Legislature should consider amending HSMA and USTA to (i) provide liability exemptions to
individuals who purchase residential property after conducting property and title inspections that reveal no basis for further environmental investigation, and (ii) provide liability
exemptions to bona fide prospective purchasers and contiguous landowners in a manner similar to the Brownfield amendments. These amendments would create consistency with the Brownfield
amendments and would further encourage redevelopment of unproductive, idled contaminated properties in many Utah communities.
The Utah Legislature also should consider clarifying
the innocent landowner exemption in HSMA. Under HSMA, anyone who purchased property before March 18, 1985 without knowledge that it was contaminated is exempt from liability whether they
conducted a pre-purchase investigation or not and so long as they did not cause any release of hazardous material.19 For purchases after March 18, 1985, all appropriate inquiry before purchase is required to secure the exemption.20 For consistency and clarity, the Legislature should establish that for purchases after May 31, 1997, a 1997 Phase I investigation will satisfy the innocent landowner exemptions under HSMA. After EPA promulgates its Phase I standard, the Utah Legislature should consider another amendment adopting EPA's standard. These amendments would create consistency with the Brownfield amendments and ratify countless purchases of Utah properties since May 31, 1997 that completed a pre-purchase 1997 Phase I assessment.
HSMA forbids taking into account ability to pay in apportioning liability for cleanup costs to responsible parties.21 The Small Business Liability Protection Act enacted simultaneously with the Brownfield amendments allow parties who quality for de minimis settlements under existing CERCLA provisions to reduce or avoid payment obligations based on their demonstrated inability (or diminished ability) to pay.22 As a matter of fairness and consistency with federal law, the Utah Legislature should consider amending HSMA in a similar manner.
EPA Reopeners
The Brownfield amendments should have a direct and positive impact on Utah's voluntary cleanup program. Under Utah's voluntary program anyone who satisfies
the requirements of a voluntary cleanup agreement receives a certificate of completion that protects not only that party but all future owners and operators of the remediated property
from liability under Utah environmental laws.23 Prior to the Brownfield amendments, this protection did not extend to liability under federal environmental laws primarily because UDEQ and EPA could never come to terms on a memorandum of understanding (MOU) covering Utah's voluntary cleanup program. Without an MOU, EPA would not agree to exempt anyone from liability under federal environmental laws who had received a state-issued certificate of completion. Hence, for those receiving a certificate of completion, they took the risk that EPA could reopen a cleanup completed under a voluntary agreement and require more cleanup work resulting in additional costs and potential further liability.
In addition, the Brownfield amendments require states who want to receive reopener protection to maintain a published record of sites that have been cleanup up under the state's
voluntary program. The list must detail whether the use of the site will be restricted after cleanup and what institutional controls, if any, will be required for a cleaned site.24 The Utah Legislature should consider amending Utah Code Ann. Subsection 19-9-101 to -118 to require UDEQ to maintain the required public record of sites.
The Brownfield amendments essentially limit the ability of EPA acting under CERCLA to reopen a site cleaned up under Utah's voluntary cleanup program. Unfortunately, the reopener
restrictions apply only to cleanups conducted after February 15, 2001 and do not apply if EPA is acting under another law such as RCRA or TSCA.25 Moreover, the Brownfield amendments allow EPA to reopen a site cleaned up under a voluntary agreement if EPA determines that a release or threatened release may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or the environment or that additional action is necessary to prevent, limit or mitigate a release or threatened release.
Depending on how EPA and courts interpret these provisions, the exceptions could swallow the rule against reopeners. For example, there are court decisions construing the language
"imminent and substantial endangerment" under RCRA to mean something less immediate and harmful than some might expect.26 EPA, UDEQ and the Utah Legislature should consider regulatory and legislative clarifications.
Pollution Liability Insurance
The Brownfield amendments remove much but not all environmental liability risk associated with contaminated properties. Risk averse
prospective purchasers should consider pollution liability insurance which has become more readily available for covering most risks associated with contaminated properties. For example,
protection against EPA reopeners, reasonable mitigation requirements, bodily injury claims, continued operation and maintenance of cleanup remedies and the like are all insurable.
Numerous different endorsements are available.
The pollution liability insurance policy forms are highly specialized requiring careful attention to tailor the policy to risks
associated with a particular transaction. Purchasers should demand a manuscripted policy tailored to the risk associated with the transaction. Brokers and underwriters should be involved
early in a transaction to allow time for them to investigate the property and to offer competing quotes and coverages. Purchasers should consider an underwriter's financial wherewithal to
cover claims and philosophy on claims. Underwriters typically review pollution liability policies every ten years, although this can be increased for lower risk sites - an important
consideration for financing arrangements. Underwriters may adjust premiums up or down after each review period depending on the level of risk remaining at the site.
There are
several underwriters writing pollution liability insurance policies including, AIG Environmental, Inc., Chubb Environmental Solutions, Gulf Insurance Group, Kemper Environmental, Liberty
Mutual Insurance, Seneca Insurance, XL Environmental, Inc., and Zurich North America. Brokers covering the West include AON Corporation, Marsh USA Inc., Miller & Associates, and
Willis Insurance Brokerage.
Brownfield Redevelopment Grants
Finally, the Brownfield amendments provide funding for investigating contamination, remediation and
redevelopment of "brownfield sites," a newly defined term that includes petroleum contaminated properties, mine-scarred lands, and other properties administered by state
programs.27 The term brownfield 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."28 The definition excludes nine types of sites in which cleanup is already likely to occur under a federal environmental program such as CERCLA, Superfund, RCRA, TSCA, FWPCA, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The funds are not available directly to private developers or parties but are provided to qualifying entities such as state and local governments, tribes and public purpose organizations.29 The grants are limited to $200,000 per site, although EPA can raise that limit up to $350,000. The grants can be used toward investigating contamination, remediation, redevelopment activities, and payment of pollution liability insurance premiums, among other restricted purposes.30
The brownfields funding should encourage private/public partnerships in redeveloping brownfield sites. Creative solutions could be developed under which funds are used
toward defining the extent of and remediating contamination and purchasing pollution liability insurance to protect those participating in the redevelopment. The goal of such projects
ought to be to apply the liability protections and funding afforded by the Brownfield amendments to turn redevelopment of brownfield sites into standard real estate transactions.
Conclusion
The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act removes significant liability for purchasers of contaminated lands and for landowners experiencing
migrating pollution from neighboring property. It also furnishes substantial funding for redevelopment of dormant contaminated, stigmatized real estate. Purchasers of contaminated
properties must conduct careful due diligence and will need even more careful pre-purchase documentation to ensure they maintain liability protections. Federal and state agencies should
amend their regulations to clarify the requirements for maintaining liability protection, and the Legislature should consider amending Utah's environmental statutes to create consistency
with the Brownfield amendments. Taking these steps should encourage public/private partnerships in redeveloping contaminating property and turn redevelopment into largely standard real
estate transactions.
Footnotes
1. Pub. L. No. 107-118, 115 Stat. 2356, 2360, 2370, 2372, 2375.
2. 42 U.S.C. Subsection 9601-9675.
3. 42. U.S.C. Subsection 6901-6992k.
4. 15 U.S.C. Subsection 2601-2692.
5. 33 U.S.C. Subsection 1251-1387.
6. Utah Code Ann. Subsection 19-6-301 to -325.
7. Utah Code Ann. Subsection 19-6-401 to -429.
8. See, e.g., O'Neil v. Picillo, 883 F.2d 176 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1071 (1990).
9. See, e.g., Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Textron Inc., 888 F. Supp. 1116, 1129 (N.D. Fla. 1995) ("mere migration of contaminants from adjacent land constitutes,disposal
for the purposes of CERCLA"); but see Carson Harbor Village Ltd v. Unocal Corp., 270 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2001).
10. Brownfield amendments Subsection 222, CERCLA
Subsection 101(40) (defining Bona Fide Prospective Purchasers); Brownfield amendments Subsection 221, CERCLA 107(q) (contiguous property exclusion).
11. Brownfield amendments Subsection 223, CERCLA Subsection 101(35).
12. See id.
13. Brownfield amendments Subsection 222, CERCLA Subsection 101(40).
14. See id.
15. EPA Guidance on Prospective Purchaser Provisions of Brownfields Law, http://es.epa.gov/oeca/osre/ppa.html.
16. Brownfield amendments Subsection 223, CERCLA Subsection 101(35).
17. Brownfield amendments Subsection 222, CERCLA Subsection 107(r).
18. Utah Dep't of Envt'l Quality v. Wind River Petro., 881 P.2d 869 (Utah 1994).
19. Utah Code Ann. Subsection 19-6-310(2)(b), -316(2)(b), -318(2)(b).
20. See id. Subsection 19-6-310(2)(c), -316(2)(c), -318(2)(c).
21. See id. Subsection 19-6-310(2)(f)(iii), -316(2)(f)(iii), -318(2)(f)(iii).
22. CERCLA Subsection 122(g)(7).
23. Utah Code Ann. Subsection 19-8-113.
24. Brownfield amendments Subsection 231, CERCLA Subsection 128.
25. Brownfield amendments Subsection 231, CERCLA Subsection 128.
26. See, e.g., Cox v. City of Dallas Texas, 256 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2001).
27. Brownfield amendments Subsection 211, CERCLA Subsection 104.
28. Brownfield amendments Subsection 211, CERCLA Subsection 101(39).
29. CERCLA Subsection 104(k)(1).
30. See id. Subsection 104(k)(4).
|
