Ohio Environmental Law Blog : Ohio Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Joseph Koncelik : Frantz Ward Law Firm : Environmental Regulation, Land Use, Compliance : Cleveland, Ohio

Often times businesses only worry about performing due diligence (Phase Is and Phase IIs) when they are purchasing a building, factory or land.  In my experience, many tenants never think about the fact that they could inherit liability for pre-existing contamination just by leasing property.  However, tenants, particularly those that are leasing industrial space, should be concerned and protect themselves accordingly. 

Now, U.S. EPA has created an even larger incentive for performing proper due diligence as a tenant.  On December 5, 2012, US EPA issued new guidance that expands liability protections for tenants that could be held liable for cleanup and remediation costs at leased properties.  

Quick Primer on Tenant Liability under CERLCA

The environmental statute that has the most broad reaching liability for pre-existing contamination  is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)- also known as Superfund.  Under CERCLA, any "owner" or "operator" can be held jointly and severally liable for cleanup costs at a site for even contamination that was present prior to their use or ownership of the property.

Tenants can be deemed an "owner" under CERCLA depending on the structure of the lease.  For example, they could be deemed a de facto owner if they have control over the entire property.

Tenants could also be held liable for pre-existing contamination as an "operator" if they store or generate hazardous substances on the leased property during the term of the lease.  There are varying tests for determining whether a tenant should be deemed an "operator" under CERCLA.  However, any tenant utilizing hazardous substances on a leased property should be aware that they could be deemed potentially liable for pre-existing contamination.

Tenants and the Bona Fide Purchaser Defense (BFPD)

In order to encourage re-use of brownfield properties, in 2002 Congress passed the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act.  As part of the Act, Congress created the "bona fide purchaser defense" (BFPD) which allows purchasers that conduct proper due diligence and follow other requirements  to purchase property with knowledge of hazardous substance contamination without incurring liability as an "owner" or "operator." 

However, when the law was passed in 2002 it did not provide the same opportunities to tenants to qualify for the BFPD.  The only way a tenant could qualify for the protection is if they were deemed an "owner" based upon the lease terms or if the owner already qualified for the BFPD.  Tenants under traditional lease arrangements with an owner that never qualified for the BFPD fell into a gap.  They simply couldn't qualify on their own for BFPD protections. 

Finally, in December 2012, EPA recognized there was a gap in potential liability protection for most tenants and it issued a new guidance allowing all tenants to qualify for the BFPD if they meet certain conditions, including:

1. Don't dispose of hazardous substances on the property;
2. Conducts proper due diligence (known as "All Appropriate Inquires");
3. Makes all legally required notices;
4. Takes "reasonable steps" regarding releases;
5. Cooperates with regulators;
6. Complies with any use restrictions or controls designed to protect against exposure to contamination;
7. Complies with administrative subpoenas and information requests; and
8. Is not potentially liable for response costs or affiliated with a person who is liable for response costs at the facility.

It is worth noting that this is only enforcement discretion guidance and not statutory liability protection.  This means that EPA could still file a suit against a tenant if it felt the circumstances justified such an action.

Tenants Should Consider the BFPD and Contract Provisions to Protect Themselves

Due to the large liability exposure associated with leasing property that may have had some history of use of hazardous substances, tenants should take steps to protect themselves.  First, perform due diligence prior to signing the lease.  Second, insist on contractual provisions that release and protect them from liability associated with pre-existing contamination. However, contract provisions still don't prevent regulators from suing you.  Therefore, as a third step tenants should evaluate are the benefits of the BFPD as another means of mitigating risk.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Owners of small business form corporations, in part, to insulate themselves from personal liability. A recent trend in Ohio is that the State has become far more aggressive in pursuing owners of small businesses personally in environmental enforcement actions.

A business owner could still be pursued even if the corporate formalities were followed.  More and more the State is pursuing any president or owner of a small business who has an active role in managing his company day-to-day.

Due to the high costs associated with environmental compliance, this is a trend that owners of small businesses should be aware of and take prudent steps to try and protect themselves. 

"Piercing the Corporate Veil"

A fundamental rule of corporate law is that, normally, shareholders, officers, and directors are not liable for the debts of the corporation. There are exceptions to this rule  Courts have found that the “veil” of the corporation can be “pierced” and individual shareholders held liable for corporate misdeeds when it would be unjust to allow the shareholders to hide behind the fiction of the corporate entity.  This is commonly referred to as "piercing the corporate veil."

The test in Ohio for disregarding the corporate form is whether:

1. Control over the corporation by those to be held liable was so complete that the corporation has no separate mind, will or existence of its own;
2. Control over the corporation by those to be held liable was exercised in such a manner as to commit fraud or an illegal act against the person seeking to disregard the corporate entity; and 
3. Injury or unjust loss resulted to the plaintiff from such control and wrong.

[See, Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 274, 287, 617 N.E.2d 1075]

It had been a rare instance when the AGO would try to "pierce the corporate veil" and pursue shareholders, owners or officers of a corporate personally for environmental violations.  That has changed since the State won a victory in 2006 in case of State of Ohio v. Mercomp.  In that case, the State successfully pierced the corporate veil attaching personal liability to Manny Rock, a shareholder of a landfill.

What Actions Gave Rise to Liability?

 Here are some of the facts that the Court gave rise to personal liability:

• Mr. Rock was the sole shareholder of the corporation;
• The name of the corporation was based upon his initials;
• Regulatory violations by a corporation, absent affirmative wrongful conduct by the shareholder, is sufficient; and
• The failure of the Corporation to correct the environmental violations threatened public health and the environment.

It is important to note that the Court found liability even though it did not find under-capitalization, failure to observe corporate formalities, insolvency, or diversion of corporate funds for personal use.

Since 2006 State Seeks Individual Liability Frequently

Since the Mercomp decision in 2006, the State of Ohio has frequently sought (and obtained) personal liability of owners of small businesses.  Individuals are not only required to perform clean up, they are also subject to civil penalties if they don't perform on a timely basis. 

For small businesses that have a sole or large majority shareholder, the Mercomp case increases the liability risks for individuals.  If a company has environmental violations that have gone unaddressed, the State may argue for personal liability.

Owners of small businesses must be aware of these risks and take steps to try and protect themselves. .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With regard to industrial properties and brownfields clean ups, perhaps no issue clean up standard has garnered more attention and increased scrutiny than indoor air.  It looks like 2012 could be the year when EPA finally updates its decade old draft guidance. 

EPA never finalized its 2002 draft guidance on assessing indoor air risks ("OSWER Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils"). The lack of official guidance has left a regulatory void regarding clean up standards.  In 2009, the Inspector General sharply criticized EPA for failing to develop final guidance (IG Report).   EPA responded to the IG report by promising to finalize new vapor intrusion guidance by the fall of 2012.

What is vapor intrusion?

Chemicals in soil and groundwater can volatilize into the air and come up through basements and slabs into buildings.  For well over a decade, EPA has required clean up plans to include an assessment and evaluation of the risks posed by vapor intrusion into buildings.

The typical process for evaluating risk had been to plug soil and groundwater sampling data into a model ("Johnson & Ettinger Model") to predict indoor concentrations within existing and future structures at a site. If concentrations were too high in an existing building, EPA would require either additional clean up or a mitigation system (similar to a radon mitigation system) to reduce concentrations.  If concentrations were too high in soil and groundwater even where no current building existed, EPA could force deed restrictions to prevent future construction in those areas of the site.

Virtually all industrial and brownfield properties have the potential to present vapor intrusion risks including current and former manufacturing and chemical processing plants, warehouses, landfills, dry cleaners, and gas stations.

Why is new guidance on vapor intrusion such a big deal? 

EPA Release First New Guidance

In February 2012, U.S. EPA's Superfund division released a new document titled Superfund Vapor Intrusion FAQs.  The new document isn't the final guidance EPA promised in response to the IG report.  However, it does provide some insights into what the new guidance will look like once its released.

Using the answers to questions in the new FAQ, one can gain insights into the direction EPA likely to head with new final guidance on evaluating vapor intrusion, including the following:

• Evidence from sites since 2002 show that concentrations of pollutants in indoor air are difficult to predict by extrapolating from samples to modeling;
• EPA recommends modeling only as a way to potentially screen out a site and will be more appropriate for evaluating future buildings on-site;
• EPA will move to requiring more soil gas sampling and sub-slab sampling to determine vapor intrusion concentrations;
• More conservative assumptions are going to be built into the model which will make it much more likely a site will fail screening values (for example, EPA will incorporate an assumption that it is about 10 times more likely vapors will move into buildings from deep soil-gas;
• New screening values will be developed; and
• At CERCLA and other regulatory sites, EPA is more likely to require community involvement in sites where vapor intrusion is being studied.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Ohio, the clean up program of choice for brownfields and industrial sites currently used is the Voluntary Action Program (VAP).  The program is designed to give a tremendous amount of flexibility to property owners and companies in terms of the nature and extent of clean up performed on their property. 

Instead of the traditional "dig and haul" method of cleaning up soil contamination or "pump and treat" contaminated groundwater, the VAP allows the use of both engineering controls and use restrictions.  Both can dramatically lower clean up costs. 

Engineering controls are barriers that prevent exposure to humans or the environment such as parking lots or buildings.  Use restrictions are deed restrictions (i.e. Environmental Covenants) that may prevent development in areas of high soil contamination, prohibit use of groundwater or restrict development to industrial/commercial use.

As long as the owner demonstrates the property meets VAP standards, Ohio EPA will issue a legal release ("covenant not to sue") which states no further clean up is needed. This legal release benefits both the current owner and is transferable to future owners of the property.

Clean Up for Anticipated Future Development

In planning a clean up, it is critical to understand up-front program requirements to obtain you legal release.  Under the VAP, a critical requirement is that the owner must implement some form of remedy for all exposure pathways which exceed VAP standards.  An "exposure pathway" can be any way a human may be exposed to unacceptable levels of contamination. 

Example of Exposure Pathway (Vapor Intrusion)- The most problematic exposure pathway is often vapor intrusion into buildings.  Vapors from soil or groundwater contamination can pass through building floors and expose the inhabitants to, what is deemed, unacceptable human health risks. 

Under the VAP rules, current and "reasonably anticipated" exposure pathways must be addressed through a remedy.  The remedy can be clean up of soil contamination, groundwater treatment, engineering controls or use restrictions. 

While the VAP program has been in existence for nearly 17 years, Ohio EPA continues to struggle with how to address anticipated development under the program.  The VAP requires the future use of the property must continue to be in compliance with VAP standards. 

How do you make that demonstration with regards to future development?

VAP calls future development "reasonably anticipated pathways."  Such a pathway would exist if a developer knows a building will be constructed on the site in the future in an area of the property that has contamination. 

The VAP rules requires that property owners to demonstrate inhabitants of that future building would not be exposed to unacceptable levels of contaminants.  If the area of construction will result in potential exposure above VAP standards, the owner must implement some type of remedy to address that exposure.

Ohio EPA released this week a VAP guidance document designed to assist in evaluating potential exposure pathways- "Reasonably Anticipated Complete Exposure Pathways"

Included in the guidance document is the following statement:

Because development plans are not always known in detail, the identification of a reasonably anticipated exposure pathway for potential development is not always easily done.

That is a gross understatement...even following the EPA guidance.  The VAP rules force the developer or property owner to make judgment regarding the potential size, location and configuration of future buildings.  These crucial development decisions can have dramatic implications for the amount of clean up needed at the site.

What Happens if Development Plans are Uncertain?

Site conditions at brownfields and other industrial properties can vary dramatically.  At some sites the issues of contamination remaining on-site in conjunction with future development can be  balanced.  At other sites, developers can be forced to make decisions regarding the extent of clean up prematurely.

In its second guidance document EPA tries to provide an administrative remedy to balancing the need for completing the VAP and avoiding expensive clean up before development plans are certain.  Ohio EPA suggests carefully crafted environmental covenants can be utilized to satisfy VAP rules, obtain your legal release and provide flexibility for future development.

The guidance is titled "Conducting Remedies in the VAP for Complete and Reasonably Anticipated to be Complete Pathways."

Conclusion

Both guidance documents are highly complex.  While the documents provide some level of flexibility to balance development with clean up, it is clearly a complex balancing act that developers must evaluate early in the process.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The contractual language appearing in purchase or lease agreements for industrial property is critical.  I have seen a number of contracts that were fraught with vague terms or even silent on liability allocation.  Those contracts now define the company's liability exposure.   Protections the company thought they may have are either non-existent or in question.  

That is why it is so important to pay very careful attention to the environmental provisions in the contract for sale or lease of property.  Particularly important are the representations, indemnity and release provisions.  On an industrial property with a legacy of environmental issues, these provisions can often be the most difficult to negotiate because they shape liability risks for years to come. 

A recent federal court ruling provides further proof of the importance of paying careful attention to contract provisions allocating environmental liability.   The Court in United States v. ARG Corporation, Case No. 10-3111 (N.D. Ind. 2011) dismissed a complaint filed by the seller which sought to recover $841,000 in response costs incurred by U.S. EPA in performing clean up activities at the former industrial site.  In dismissing the complaint, the Court found that the purchase contract contained a clear allocation of environmental liability.  In essence, the purchaser avoided nearly $1 million in clean up costs based on the contractual provisions it negotiated prior to purchase.

The contract language at issue stated as follows:

The Seller shall remain solely financially responsible for the Remediation Activities arising from the Seller’s ownership, use or operation of the property prior to the Closing Date, provided however, that the Purchaser covenants not to execute against the Seller’s assets to satisfy the Seller’s financial responsibilities for remediation of pre-closing environmental damage except for the proceeds of recoveries under the general liability policies issued to the seller prior to closing.

The Purchaser shall be solely financially responsible for the Remediation Activities arising from the Purchaser’s ownership, use or operation of the property after the Closing Date.

"Remediation Activities" shall mean investigation and remediation activities, including but not limited to installing, operating, and maintaining all monitoring wells; collecting soil and/or groundwater samples; measuring groundwater levels in measuring wells; soil removal; groundwater treatment; and performing other related assessment activities, necessary to investigate and remediate environmental damage caused by the release of hazardous substances in accordance with any environmental laws.

The Court held that

"this language unambiguously states that ARG is solely responsible for remediating hazardous substances on the property arising from ARG’s ownership, use, or operation prior to the closing...South Bend is solely responsible for remediating hazardous substances on the property arising from South Bend's ownership, use, or operation after the closing date.

The Court also held that if South Bend believes ARG is responsible for cleaning up pre-closing hazardous substances, it will only seek recovery from ARG's insurance policies.  The court found the contract did not indicate South Bend would indemnify ARG if ARG was forced to pay the Government for remediating hazardous substances.

This case is a good example of the benefits of clear contractual language when allocating environmental liabilities.  Due to the high costs involved with clean up, there is a strong incentive for the party on the losing end to put forth creative interpretations of the language in an attempt to pass on or mitigate their liability.   Clear and unambiguous terms can be your best defense in such an instance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There are a myriad of federal statutes that require your company to report a spill to any of the following:

• National Response Center
• State Emergency Response Center (SERC)
• Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC)
• Local Fire Department

Failure to report a spill can lead to an enforcement action as well as civil penalties.  Also, failure to respond appropriately following a spill can lead to serious ramifications for your company in terms of exposure to greater clean up costs, property damages, or environmental harm. 

Due to the liability exposure associated with managing and reporting spills appropriately, its wise for all corporations to have prepared an internal corporate policy for spill response.  The policy would not only cover when you have a legal obligation to report a spill to regulators, but also how to communicate about a spill internally within the company.

Depending on the facts and circumstances surrounding the spill event, you are not always under a legal obligation to report a spill to the authorities.  Its wise to know your regulatory obligations before making the decision to report.  Otherwise, you may be inviting teams of regulators to your facility unnecessarily. (Click here for U.S. EPA's Website on Spill Reporting)

The facts of each event are different.  Therefore, each must be analyzed independently to determine your regulatory obligations.  However, its wise to get familiar with the triggers for mandatory reporting.

Attached is a series of power point slides which contains information regarding the most commonly applied federal regulations that may trigger mandatory reporting to federal or state regulators.  The spreadsheet shows the event, regulation, trigger level and reporting requirement. 

These charts were based upon a more limited spreadsheet prepared by Region VII of U.S. EPA called the Fact Sheet on Emergency Release Reporting Requirements.  They are meant for reference only and cannot substitute for analysis of each regulation and the facts surrounding your particular event.  However, I hope they are useful to you in getting familiar with the mandatory reporting obligations that exist.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There has been much discussion regarding the use of Land Banks to assist in addressing the aftermath of the foreclosure crisis.  Here is an excerpt from the Cleveland Plain Dealer discussing the County's recently launched non-profit corporate land bank:

Formally launched by the county in April, the new, nonprofit land bank is the first of its kind in Ohio.It could soon turn Cleveland into the nation's biggest urban laboratory on how a declining industrial city with a comatose real estate market can downsize gracefully -- and prepare to rebound in the future. The impact on the city as a whole could be far greater than individual projects such as the proposed medical mart and revamped convention center downtown.

Ohio recently passed Senate Bill 353 which allows a two year trial period for Counties to create a separate county land reutilization corporation for purposes of acquiring abandoned and tax delinquent properties.  By allowing creation of a separate corporation, the law addresses the issue of liability- a major short-coming of Ohio's existing land banking law set forth in Ohio Revised Code 5722.  The law also allows for an expedited foreclosure process. The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland released an good analysis of the new legislation titled "Understanding Ohio's Land Bank Legislation."

Why create a land bank?  Obviously, thousands of abandoned properties bring down property values across the board and create blight.  Abandoned properties also present other risks. Here is a quote from a University of Michigan study of its Land Bank program:

The U.S. Fire Administration reports that over 12,000 vacant structure fires are reported each year in the U.S., which results in $73 million in property damage annually.  In addition, abandoned properties tend to attract crime. A 1993 study of 59 abandoned properties in Austin, Texas, found that 34 percent were used for illegal activities and of the 41 percent that were unsecured, 83 percent were used for illegal activities.

While the focus of the recently enacted Land Bank Legislation has been as a tool for addressing abandoned residential properties, its utility should also be examined for application to brownfields. Land Banks can serve has effective means of addressing the complex legal and environmental issues that face brownfield properties. 

As an example, the Franklin County Land Bank was used successfully to address tax liens on the former Bedford Landfill which overcame a significant barrier to redevelopment.  The Bedford Landfill became a successful Clean Ohio project receiving a $3 million grant from the State of Ohio.

Today, I attended a presentation by members of the City of Cleveland's Economic Development Department on the City's Industrial Land Bank Program.  Nate Hoelzel and David Ebersole provided an interesting overview of this unique effort by the City to address large brownfield's for redevelopment.

The City of Cleveland's Industrial/Commercial Land Bank was launched in 2005.  The creation of the Cleveland Industrial Land Bank was preceded by an academic study by Cleveland State University.  The purpose of the bank is to try an assemble large tracks of abandoned property in areas identified by the City for priority commercial/industrial development.  Criteria include looking for properties of at least 20 acres in size and near key infrastructure.

In a relatively short time period (less than 4 years), the Land Bank has acquired 100 acres of brownfield property.  Thirty-seven (37) acres are currently on the market for industrial or commercial redevelopment.  The adjacent picture is from Economic Development Department's web page shows the location of 3 tracks currently held by the Land Bank.

The industrial/commercial land bank is designed to overcome the unique aspects of  contaminated urban property that prevents major development.  Representatives for the City of Cleveland estimated it cost approximately $300,000 per acre to address urban brownfield property.  Such a staggering costs often drives development to greenfields and promotes urban sprawl.  The factors that drive such staggering costs include:

• liability for contamination
• assessment costs for investigating the extent of contamination
• demolition costs for vacant buildings
• property title issues including tax liens

Land Bank's can overcome many of these barriers by providing public funds for costly environmental assessment, removing title issues and even potentially addressing liability through clean up of the property.  A property returned to the market may be free of tax liens and have received a full release from the State of Ohio for environmental contamination.

While successful for its relatively short existence, Cleveland's Industrial Land Bank could be improved if provided additional flexibility.  The Land Bank relies upon the traditional legal framework for its activities.  The legal authority for municipalities to purchase underutilized land exists at the State level in Ohio Revised Code 5722 and at authority for the Industrial Land Bank is located in Section 183.021 of the City of Cleveland Code. Under these authorities, no separate corporation can be created which means the City can face significant liability exposure under federal Superfund laws (CERCLA) for owning contaminated property. 

During the presentation, the presenters mentioned the City's effort to amend federal law during the effort in 2006 to reauthorize U.S. EPA's brownfield program.  While amendment of federal law to allow municipalities or counties to acquire property without fear of CERCLA liability makes sense, it may be an uphill climb.  It may be more practical to allow for expansion of Ohio's new Land Banking Legislation to specifically allow for political subdivisions to acquire brownfield properties through a separate corporation.  This would provide City's a layer of liability protection for being active in purchasing these complex properties.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks