Archive | Due Dilligence RSS feed for this section

MDEQ rescinds vapor intrusion guidance – uncertainty reigns – what is clean enough?

21 Jun 2017

Back in the 1990’s, there was uncertainty about when a cleanup was truly completed – “how clean is clean?” was the question and it seems that those days may be returning – at least for a while.

The MDEQ announced Tuesday that it was rescinding major parts of its May 2013 Vapor Intrusion Guidance which we blogged about when it was published.  This 2013 guidance addressed part of the question of how clean is “clean enough” when a brownfield redevelopment or cleanup does not reduce the residual contamination to zero.  Vapor intrusion is explained in this link but, basically, it is the threat that some contaminants may migrate upward from soils and groundwater into buildings at unsafe levels.  For the last four years, people in Michigan have relied on and been guided by the 2013 Guidance.

MDEQ has been trying for years to update its clean up rules and standards which have been in place for some 15 years.  The thought was that new data and studies were available and the cleanup standards which were largely driven by conservative assumptions should be brought up to date.  Due to somewhat arcane legal reasons, MDEQ set October 27, 2017, as its date for promulgating these new rules and have been working hard (and continues to work  hard) to meet this deadline (the most current version available at the moment can be found here but updates are expected soon).

Review your BEA or due care plan (if you have one); if your site doesn’t have volatile compounds – rest easier. If it does, your BEA might be subject to an EPA evaluation if there is a concern about vapors migrating into occupied spaces – even off-site spaces. 

Until MDEQ adopts its new rules, MDEQ will include a standard caveat in approval letters issued moving forward that screening levels used “may not reflect the best available science.” That level of uncertainty may chill many deals and plans under consideration or drive them to more expensive cleanups.    

Logically,  MDEQ argues that they should similarly update the vapor intrusion standards and include them in the rules package.  Vapor intrusion has been in the press a lot recently including this article that discusses 4,000 sites which the State might be looking to address an issue which was thought put to bed or wasn’t simply an issue when the site was granted closed status.

This is where the uncertainty kicks in.  MDEQ doesn’t typically address direct human health threats – that would be the State Health Department.  The same State Health Department that allegedly missed the Flint Water Crisis and whose director and chief medical officer have been indicted. The State Health Department takes a fairly conservative approach to vapor intrusion and has told MDEQ that its standards are too lenient.  MDEQ has developed new hyper-conservative standards that could cause sites which previously passed to now fail.

What is a property owner/developer to do?  First, review your BEA and due care plan (if you have one); if your site doesn’t have volatile compounds – rest easier.  If it does, it is possible your property might be subject to EPA action if there is a concern about vapors migrating into occupied spaces – particularly off-site spaces.  The owner of the site profiled in the MiLive article above found their BEA protection weaker than they had thought and are now dealing with an EPA demand for payment.

For future deals, buyers and lenders may want more aggressive due diligence and cleanup programs to ensure that vapor intrusion is not a risk. This may sideline properties which, until recently would’ve been accepted using the MDEQ’s 2013 Guidance.

Until MDEQ adopts its new rules (which may not take effect until next Spring), the MDEQ will be reviewing and approving requests to approve “no further action” based on current standards but MDEQ will include a standard caveat in approval letters issued moving forward that screening levels used “may not reflect the best available science.”   That level of uncertainty may chill many deals and plans under consideration or drive them to more expensive cleanups or site-specific cleanups which require far more and expensive justification.

What will 2017 Bring? Dramatic Change?

20 Dec 2016

edit_calendar_ssk_47433454In prior years, we knew that regulatory and environmental change was coming but we expected it to be slow and incremental.  With an unknown quantity like President Elect Trump, one thing is clear – no one really knows what may happen.  Here are a few possibilities:

1.  Coal/Cleaner Energy Generation – revitalizing the coal industry was part of Mr. Trump’s midwest stump speeches.  Will Mr. Trump be able to reverse Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan? What about the Paris Climate Accord?  Certainly, his team is looking at both of those right now. The dispute in Michigan v. EPA, decided in June 2015, continues to rage.  In 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the EPA didn’t properly justify its rule governing mercury and toxic pollution (MATS) from power plants because it did not specifically address costs at the initial stage of the rulemaking process. In April, the EPA announced it was standing by its MATS rule and concluded that the benefits far outweighed the costs.  Petitioners continue to litigate whether the EPA properly evaluated costs.  Here in Michigan, new legislation has been passed (and is awaiting the Governor’s signature) intended to encourage additional investment in energy generation and transmission while balancing consumer choice and a greater percentage of renewable energy generation.  Will it work? At a reasonable cost?

2. Power Generation Subsidies/Oil/Gas Generation – Mr. Trump’s attacks on “crony capitalism” would seem to mean that he will stop financial incentives for solar and wind generation.  Will he also attack oil and natural gas supports in the tax code?  Will he open up ANWAR to oil/gas exploration?  Will he scale back attempts to regulate fracking?  This will be difficult in light of the December EPA Report  which concluded that fracking posed problems such as:  fracking water withdrawals compete with other water needs; spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water may impair groundwater resources; injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells may allow gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources; discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources; and contamination of groundwater due to disposal or storage of fracturing wastewater.

3. Pipelines – will Mr. Trump reverse the Obama administration’s dim view of oil and gas pipelines such as the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines?  How will this affect Michigan where public awareness of two 60+ year-old pipelines under the Mackinac Straits has galvanized both sides of the political spectrum into action.  In 2014, Michigan convened a pipeline task force which issued a report in 2015.  In September, 2015, the State entered into a written agreement with Enbridge to prevent the transport of heavy crude oil through the Straits Pipelines.  The task force also recommended that the pipelines be independently evaluated and that additional financial assurance be provided.  The State solicited Requests for Information and Proposals (RFPs) and Enbridge agreed to pay $3.6 Million for the evaluation of the Straits Pipelines.  An independent evaluation of alternatives to the Line 5 pipelines is also underway.  When those will be completed is not known.

4. Infrastructure – Mr. Trump campaigned on infrastructure (although to hear him tell it, that only encompasses airport quality), and Governor Snyder appointed a 21st Century Infrastructure Task Force which concluded that the State needed to be investing $4 Billion more than it was in infrastructure to address roads, bridges, internet, water, sewer and other infrastructure needs.  Given the recent nationally publicized Flint Water debacle, will Michigan find the intestinal fortitude to fully invest in infrastructure or will we continue to patch and delay?  Given the State’s recent fight against a federal judge’s order to deliver clean water, and Michigan legislators “default anti-tax setting,” the future does not bode well.

5. Brownfields – as previously reported, Michigan adopted legislation streamlining its brownfield funding laws and deferred action on Dan Gilbert’s “transformational” brownfield funding legislation.  Will that resurface in early 2017?  I expect it will.

6. Other issues – there are a number of other issues on the horizon including cleanup standards, the maturing of the Great Lakes Water Authority and its ability to deliver clean water and septic services at a reasonable price, Michigan’s effort to reimagine its solid waste program, water withdrawals and protection of the Great Lakes from invasive species and nutrients leading to algal blooms.

Gilbert Transformational Brownfield Legislation Stalls

12 Dec 2016

MOnroeblock9Dan Gilbert’s team drafted legislation based on the current Brownfield law.  This legislation was  moving rapidly through the Michigan Legislature until the Michigan Speaker of the House announced that the House would wait until next year to move the bills forward.  While this seems to have killed the bills for now, some are still lobbying for them to become law before 2017.

Articles had appeared in the local papers describing two proposed towers for the Monroe block of downtown Detroit (pictured), These articles include statements that the buildings won’t be built without this legislation being enacted (and presumably implemented in their favor).

The legislation is based on an existing approach – when a project increases property value, the taxes on that increased value can be captured and used to pay for  “eligible expenses.” Typically, these TIF (tax increment financing) programs put the risk of failure on the developer (where it belongs) while they increase the potential return by reimbursing the developer for expenses it would otherwise absorb.  The current brownfield law allows communities to issue bonds and pledge their full faith and credit, but in the brownfield “universe” that almost never happens.

The brownfield TIF law allows reimbursements for cleaning up contamination and taking protective measures and, in more urban communities, for costs of site preparation and infrastructure improvements.   This State, like many others, has decided that these incentives are necessary to entice developers to take desired risks. This is not a tax credit, nor, do the taxpayers of the State front any money to the developer.  If the development does not result in the increase in taxes expected, the developer loses. Without a bond, if there is no tax increment, the community/state owes the developer nothing.  Further, the community is held harmless because the predevelopment property taxes continue to go to the government as they did before project development. In short, this is a kind of “deferred gratification” for the taxing authorities as they must wait until the developer is repaid to get taxes on the increased property values (certain taxes are exempted from the TIF program and so there is some immediate benefit to the community).

So what’s the fuss about the Gilbert legislation?  These bills take the Brownfield TIF and put it on a massive dose of steroids. In addition to capturing real property taxes,  the Gilbert team proposes to capture both income taxes and sales taxes generated on a property following its redevelopment, if the project is “transformational.” This legislation vastly broadens the eligible expenses which can be reimbursed.  Instead of covering only environmental cleanups, environmental due care and communal benefits like infrastructure, the Gilbert legislation would allow a developer to be reimbursed for all of its construction costs. This is bold and would almost certainly lead to new, riskier developments. A developer could wind up with a significant competitive advantage because his costs are could be fully reimbursed. This could allow such a developer to undercut the market or amass significant profits.  The potential for market distortion appears to have been overlooked by the few commentators who have spoken on the subject.

The legislation includes a cap on the number of such transformational projects per year and per community and with a maximum of $50 Million in the first year’s capture for new projects. It is tiered so what is transformational (based on a dollar amount) varies based on the size of the community. This was a sop to smaller communities to get their support for this legislation as was a provision putting funds into the State’s Brownfield revolving fund. There are also some exemptions from the spending requirements including one that seems directed right at Flint.

“Transformational” can mean many different things  but the legislation’s focus is whether a project will transform local economic development, community revitalization, growth in population, commercial activity and employment.

The legislation received little notice until recently. Interestingly, it has been criticized by those on the left and on the right. A Free Press column calling this legalized “serfdom” for employees seems over-the-top. Yes, taxes will be collected and ultimately reimbursed to the developer.  I don’t see that equaling employee slavery. The Mackinac Center piece is a bit closer to the mark. They complain of “crony capitalism.”  The fact that only a few developers can get these projects approved per year and one per community per year does seem like the sort of favoritism inherent in crony capitalism. Further, the fact that the projects are limited to extremely expensive ones (on a range between $15 Million and $500 Million depending on county population), again, seems to mean that only the elite get benefits that are not available to the ordinary developer. In that regard, as the Mackinac Center points out, this is no different than any TIF financing model (and there are many of them in use throughout Michigan and the US).  This is the world we live in as evidenced by President-Elect Trump’s efforts to keep a Carrier plant in Indiana.

The capture of sales and income taxes would be new to Michigan and would put Michigan in the minority of states that allow such capture.

What has not been commented on is the need for a mechanism to ensure that the taxpayers of the State of Michigan are held harmless – so that the income and sales taxes to be captured are truly new to the State and not the result of a business moving its operations from one place to another.  This mechanism (and others needed) are to be developed later.  This is a practical consideration with large implications.  The State’s review of this legislation thus far includes an admission that the Legislature has no idea how much this might actually cost the State in revenue if it passes as is.

Will this package of bills pass?  I expect it will.  If not this month, then early next year.  If the Legislature doesn’t address some of the concerns expressed above, we may find ourselves with some major projects and some unintended consequences not too far down the road.

CSI Part II – MDEQ rolls out brownfield tax increment financing proposal – five major changes you should know about

11 Nov 2014

moneyAs you may recall from this spring, I was asked to serve on MDEQ’s initiative to  review and improve the “patchwork quilt” of statutes and rules regarding brownfield redevelopment incentives, grants and loans.  A CSI II group (of which, in full disclosure, I chaired the Legislative Committee) met regularly over the Spring and Summer and MDEQ has announced two meetings (see the attached flyer) to roll out the proposed changes. These changes have not yet been introduced in the Legislature and thus, are currently only an MDEQ internal recommendation. The hope is that these changes will be introduced shortly.

if passed, these proposed changes should streamline, simplify and speed up the process for loan, grant and TIF approvals to enable projects to get started faster than ever before while supporting a greater range of eligible activities than previously available.

There was some tension between those championing redevelopment and those focusing on environmental remediation but ultimately, there was agreement on a set of changes and clarification of the rules and statutes to clarify the process for obtaining loans, grants and tax increment financing for brownfield redevelopment.  The five most significant changes include: (more…)

Michigan Pipelines Under Review

29 Oct 2014

pipeline

Spills from pipelines were very newsy over the last couple of years.  There was the Kalamzoo River oil spill and a number elsewhere.  As with most things, eventually the public and news media tire of it and move on to something else.  A recent Indiana spill into Lake Michigan barely made any news.  Interestingly, this summer, the State of Michigan created a Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force to review issues relating to pipelines transporting petroleum products around the State.  Despite federal jurisdiction by the  federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Task Force is looking at issues including:

  • Michigan’s emergency management preparedness for spills,
  • Coordination of permitting issues for pipeline upgrades and replacement, and
  • The creation of a state website to serve as an information clearinghouse for residents who have questions or concerns about pipelines.

The Task Force’s members are Co-Chairs: Dan Wyant, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and Bill Schuette, Michigan Attorney General, and John Quackenbush,  Michigan Public Service Commission, Keith Creagh, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Jon Allan, DEQ’s Office of the Great Lakes, Kirk Steudle, Michigan Department of Transportation and Col. Kriste Kibbey Etue, Michigan State Police.

As Michigan is looking at pipeline risks and preparedness, so should you.

(more…)

But they already did a phase I….

2 May 2014

cautionWhen a seller or lender gives a prospective buyer a phase I environmental site assessment (ESA) and it concludes there are no recognized environmental concerns, that means you’re “good to go,” right? Well, not so fast.  There are some things to check on which include:

1.  When was the ESA performed and to what standard?  Standards have changed over the years and if the ESA is 6 months old or older, parts of it will need to be updated.  Sometimes ESAs done for lenders don’t include all the elements a buyer must include to satisfy the All Appropriate Inquiry standard.  It is also possible for much older ESAs, that circumstances may have changed and you’re better served just starting over.

2.  For whom was the ESA prepared and can you rely on it?  Most ESAs were prepared for a specific client and often include a limit on who can “use” them.  There’s no certainty on whether a use limit actually prevents you from relying on an ESA to assert the innocent landowner defense but it is likely that such a limit would prevent you from seeking recourse from the consultant that prepared it, if it turns out to be inadequate.

3. Even if you can rely on it, will the consultant stand behind it?  Often, consultants will “let” you rely on their old ESAs for a fee.  The question to ask is – is it worth it? I have seen consultants attempt to contractually limit their exposure to $50,000 or their available insurance or their fee whichever is less!  I have also seen consultants say that they will only be liable for direct losses and will not be liable for so-called consequential losses such as lost value or revenue.  This means that the consultant will only be liable for the actual harm (breaking things or hurting people) they cause and not for any errors or oversights they make in actually doing their work!

In short, there are many pitfalls to relying on a so-called “clean” prior phase I and the list above only scratches the surface.  We still live in a caveat emptor world and you, as buyer, need to take steps to beware.

CSI Part II – this time, it’s brownfields

14 Mar 2014

z39237120As regular readers of this blog know, initially, I was not a huge fan of MDEQ’s 2012 CSI (Collaborative Stakeholder Initiative) process aimed at refining MDEQ’s Part 201 language and rules to enable more sites to achieve closure and get out of “contamination limbo.”  Well, the process did lead to some specific recommendations and some concrete legislative changes and it appears that closures are slowly being approved more quickly and easily.
Well, not one to rest on her laurels, Anne Couture at the MDEQ decided to try and revisit the process in 2014, this time focusing on making the “patchwork quilt” of statutes and rules regarding brownfield redevelopment, incentives, grants and loans more straightforward.  A CSI II group (of which, in full disclosure, I am a part) has had its first meeting and will be working throughout the Spring and Summer. The group has been charged with focusing on the following six specific areas:

1. Legislative;
2. Core Communities;
3. Site Reclamation Rules;
4. Demolition, Lead, Asbestos, and Dredging;
5. Liability; and
6. Program Implementation.

If you have specific concerns regarding these issues or ideas on ways to improve or streamline the brownfield process or incentives, feel free to let the MDEQ know or send me an email at asiegal@jaffelaw.com and I will be sure to pass your comments on.