Be Sure to Read the Fine Print In a Consultant's Proposal

When hiring an environmental consultant, it is important to carefully review the terms and conditions governing the agreement between you and your consultant.  One of the key components of the professional services agreement is the section dealing with the consultant’s potential liability for its own negligence.  Consulting firms will often look to limit their liability to the contract price or some other nominal amount.  Richard Ericsson and David Steinberger of the Cole Schotz Environmental Law Department discuss this issue and a recent New Jersey court decision in an article titled, "Be Aware of Your Consultant’s Liability Limit."

In its decision, the Appellate Division upheld a consultant’s contract which limited the consultant’s liability to $25,000.  In that case, the consultant, retained by a real estate buyer for pre-acquisition due diligence, had grossly underestimated the cost to clean up the property.  The consultant’s initial cleanup cost estimate was between $13,000 to $17,000, while the final cleanup cost estimate was over $3 Million.  Nevertheless, the court upheld the consultant’s contractual liability limit of $25,000.  This case reinforces the need to carefully review professional services agreements to make sure you are adequately protected.
 

Do You Have Available Sewer Service for your Development or Expansion? Are you Sure About That?

Being able to dispose of wastewater is a key element in any development, redevelopment or expansion project.  However, a process is underway in New Jersey that may remove properties from existing sewer service areas. 

The New Jersey Water Quality Planning Act requires, among other things, that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection establish a planning process for wastewater management.  NJDEP adopted the Water Quality Management Planning Rules, which were amended in 2008. 

Counties are generally responsible for developing a Wastewater Management Plan  which governs, in part, the distribution of sewer service within the County.  Several counties (Bergen, Passaic, Union and Warren), however, have “opted out” and will not be issuing Wastewater Management Plans.  In those cases, a regional utility authority or municipality establishes the plan for NJDEP approval. 

Generally, the Wastewater Management Plan compares the available treatment capacity of existing wastewater treatment plants with expected demand from future development.  If that analysis shows that there could be a shortage of wastewater treatment capacity based upon possible future development, then properties will need to be excluded from the applicable sewer service area to limit the future wastewater demand.  Additionally, the NJDEP rules do not allow sewer service in areas identified by the NJDEP as “environmentally sensitive areas”.  Environmentally sensitive areas include, for instance, certain wetlands and threatened and endangered species habitat.  If the NJDEP believes that your property includes environmentally sensitive areas, then it would be excluded from the future sewer service area.

The process of redrawing sewer service area maps is currently underway statewide, and many properties may be removed from sewer service areas.  In redrawing these maps, the NJDEP may be using out-dated and unreliable data.  For instance, the NJDEP computer mapping may show a wetland on your property, while on the ground there are no wetlands.  Nevertheless, once the sewer service area maps are finalized, there will be a presumption that the NJDEP maps of environmentally sensitive areas are valid.  It will therefore be very difficult to challenge the final sewer service area maps.  A much better course of action is to challenge the draft sewer service area maps.

Finally, if you are excluded from a sewer service area, don’t count on using a septic system to handle your wastewater – the NJDEP has tightened the standards applicable to septic systems too.

It is therefore critical to determine – right now – whether your property is being slated for removal from the sewer service area.  Again, this should be done before the new maps go into effect, because it will be easier to correct the draft map than revise a final map.

NJDEP Proposes Common Sense Waiver Rule

On March 7, 2011, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) proposed a rule that would enable them to relax standards set-forth in existing rules under appropriate circumstances. The goal of the proposed rule is to remove unreasonable impediments to economic growth while ensuring net environmental benefit for the State. The proposed rule establishes the conditions and procedures for the NJDEP “to approve waivers from strict compliance with its rules where rules conflict, or rules are unduly burdensome in specific application, or net environmental benefit would be realized, or public emergency exists.” The idea is to prevent or minimize the circumstances where strict compliance with a rule would lead to an unreasonable, unfair, or unintended result which in turn could adversely effect the applicant, the public, and/or the environment.

This proposed rule is consistent with Governor Chris Christie’s Executive Order No. 2, which sought to establish “Common Sense Principals” of governance. As we have consistently been hearing from the NJDEP and the Governor’s office recently, it appears that the State is willing to listen to the regulated community as to the rules effecting employers, job creators, local government and families throughout the State. NJDEP Commissioner, Bob Martin has stated, “[w]e have an opportunity to change how government operates in a positive way. We can cut through unnecessary red tape and provide real solutions to real world problems, while maintaining our high protective standards.”

The NJDEP would consider a waiver application only if one or more of the following conditions exists:

  • Conflicting rules – the requirements sought to be waived conflicts with another NJDEP or other State or Federal agency rule;
  • Unduly burdensome – Strict application of a rule creates an exception and undue hardship (similar to criteria for local zoning variances), or where another method of compliance would have the same or better results but at a significantly lower cost;
  • Net environmental benefit – The environment would be enhanced by a project enabled by the waiver; mitigation would be allowed to be considered; and
  • Public emergency – NJDEP would waive a rule to respond to an emergency.

The Commissioner makes clear that this proposal would not allow waivers to be routinely or commonly granted, but will be issued on a site by site and case by case basis.  NJDEP officials have said that it needs some flexibility to decide what makes more sense in making government work.

Critics of the proposed rule say that this is just merely a way to turn over decision making power to the NJDEP to circumvent existing environmental rules. Their concern is that the rules should apply across the board and the subjectivity of this proposed rule could counteract the application of the existing rules and regulations. Regardless of which side of the fence you fall, this proposed rule could have significant impacts on future development, re-development, as well as how property is investigated and cleaned up in New Jersey.

A public hearing on the proposed waiver rule is scheduled for April 14, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. at the NJDEP’s Headquarters in Trenton. Written comments may be submitted to NJDEP through May 6, 2011. The proposed rule is available on line at http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/notices.html.
 

 

Guaranteed Cleanup Cost Contracts: A Keystone for Contaminated Property Deals

Often the hardest issue to negotiate in a real estate transaction involving a contaminated property is which of the parties has to pay if the actual environmental cleanup costs are much higher than the estimate used by the parties when they negotiated the deal terms. Many deals used to die over this issue either because neither of the parties to the transaction were comfortable accepting the risk or because the purchaser’s lender was the uncomfortable one. Now Guaranteed Cleanup Cost Contracts – in which the environmental consultant agrees to complete the cleanup for no more than an agreed upon guaranteed cleanup cost – are used to close many of these deals. If the guaranteed cleanup cost is exceeded, the environmental consultant pays the cost overruns to the extent provided by the Guaranteed Cleanup Cost Contract (“GCCC”). Where cost cap environmental insurance is purchased, an environmental insurance company pays the cost overruns to the extent provided in the policy. By laying this risk off on someone who is otherwise not a party to the real estate transaction, it often becomes much easier to get the parties to close. These deals are not easy to close, but much easier than they were before GCCCs.

GCCCs Without Environmental Insurance: GCCCs can be used to help close contaminated property deals regardless of the purchase price or the amount of the guaranteed cleanup cost. For transactions with a lower purchase price or guaranteed cleanup cost, the GCCC may be the only practical way to address the issue so that closing can occur immediately. This is because the parties may be unwilling to pay the cost of environmental insurance or environmental insurance may be unavailable and therefore the only practical way to secure the payment of costs in excess of the guaranteed cleanup cost is to get the consultant to accept the risk. 

All of the environmental documents the seller has concerning the contamination on the property are provided to one or more consultants; who review the documents and provide a proposed guaranteed cleanup cost to obtain a regulatory sign-off from the appropriate governmental agency with jurisdiction over the cleanup (e.g. – the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). If the amount of information concerning the contamination on the property is not sufficient for the consultant to provide a guaranteed cleanup cost, they are asked to provide a proposal for whatever additional work they would need to do in order to provide a proposed guaranteed cleanup cost – different consultants require different amounts of information depending upon how risk adverse they are. Some consultants require a governmentally approved cleanup plan in place before they will agree to enter a GCCC, while others simply want enough sampling data so that they can somewhat confidently predict what the governmental agency that will one day oversee the cleanup will require.

A consultant is then selected to do the cleanup, usually on some combination of their skill and experience and having a relatively low guaranteed cleanup cost. A GCCC is then negotiated with the consultant selected whereby the consultant agrees to perform the cleanup of the known contamination for no more than the guaranteed cleanup cost. Typically, the consultant entering the GCCC agrees to cleanup only the known contamination, which is broadly defined to include the entire discharge of contamination of which there is any evidence in the existing sampling data, both its source and the full extent of its migration. Newly discovered discharges of contamination not seen by the consultant in the sampling data before the GCCC was entered are not part of the consultant’s remedial obligation, although environmental insurance can be obtained to cover this risk as discussed below.

Some consultants want the guaranteed cleanup cost to be paid in full no matter what the cleanup actually costs them to perform, while others are willing to be paid on a time and materials basis with the understanding that upon completion of the cleanup the consultant will receive some percentage (e.g. – 50 percent) of the unspent portion of the guaranteed cleanup cost as a bonus. These GCCCs cover a wide range of issues, but most importantly they make it clear that the environmental consultant is liable for all costs to clean up the known contamination in excess of the guaranteed cleanup cost. Of course, often the only security for the environmental consultant’s obligations, which may take many years for the consultant to fully perform (e.g. – where there is groundwater contamination), is the financial strength of the environmental consultant. Clearly, that financial strength may change over time and could reduce the security of the property owner for the consultant’s performance, so that it needs to be scrutinized at least before entering a GCCC.

GCCC With Environmental Insurance: Environmental insurance is often used either to provide coverage for the discovery of new discharges of contamination (which are excluded from the consultant’s remedial obligation under the GCCC) or as a better form of security for the consultant’s performance than is provided by the consultant’s assets. Typically, the environmental insurance policy can provide two kinds of coverage: Pollution Legal Liability Coverage and Cost Cap Coverage (the names of coverages vary from insurance company to insurance company).

Pollution Legal Liability Coverage: Pollution Legal Liability Coverage ordinarily covers new discoveries of pre-existing contamination during the policy term. This covers what is ordinarily excluded from the consultant’s remedial obligation under the GCCC. Since the time when pre-existing contamination is most likely to be discovered is in the course of cleaning up the known contamination, we strongly recommend purchasing this coverage as it is usually quite affordable.

Pollution Legal Liability Coverage also covers third party lawsuits (i.e. – lawsuits by anyone other than the seller and purchaser of the property) for property damage or bodily injury arising from any pre-existing contamination, whether known or not when the policy was purchased. So if groundwater contamination on the property migrates off-site and impacts a neighbor’s property, the Pollution Legal Liability Coverage would protect against a lawsuit by the neighbor for property damage or bodily injury. Coverage can be purchased for claims for either new discharges of pollution occurring after the policy is purchased or for business interruption caused by the contamination or its remediation. This coverage is often the key to getting the parties to close, as it covers virtually all of the risks about which a purchaser of contaminated property and its lender are concerned.

Cost Cap Coverage: Cost Cap Coverage generally provides insurance coverage if the cost to cleanup the known contamination exceeds the guaranteed cleanup cost. For as long as the Cost Cap Coverage remains in place, the environmental insurance company is primarily liable for cleanup costs in excess of the guaranteed cleanup cost that must be incurred to obtain the regulatory sign-off from the governmental agency with jurisdiction over the cleanup. There are only a few insurance companies interested in issuing cost cap coverage, as its claims history has often resulted in it being unprofitable.

The guaranteed cleanup cost serves as the deductible that must be exceeded before the insurance company is obligated to provide the Cost Cap Coverage. While this would seem to take the environmental consultant off the risk of such cost overruns, ordinarily the environmental consultant assumes the risk of such overruns once the term of the Cost Cap Coverage has expired and also if the cost of the cleanup exceeds the amount of the Cost Cap Coverage. Since the insurance companies are only willing to provide Cost Cap Coverage for a fairly tight timeframe (e.g.- usually only one year longer than the consultant’s estimated time to conduct the cleanup), this motivates the environmental consultant to finish the cleanup before it assumes the risk of all cost overruns in excess of the guaranteed cleanup cost.

In our experience, using the environmental consultants that we recommend, the insurance companies are willing to provide Cost Cap Coverage even where there is no cleanup plan approved by the governmental agency with jurisdiction over the cleanup. There just needs to be enough investigation done for the consultant to have a good handle on the nature and extent of the contamination. It is the consultant’s job to convince the insurance company that there is a sound basis for its guaranteed cleanup cost to serve as the deductible for the Cost Cap Coverage.

Using one of the options above can make it much easier to close a transaction involving a contaminated property. In fact, by using a GCCC with both Pollution Legal Liability Coverage and Cost Cap Coverage, and adding the lender to the policy as an insured, we have been able to get many of the large institutional lenders to accept the contaminated property as the sole collateral for a purchase money mortgage. Otherwise, they would never accept the contaminated property as the sole collateral for the loan. And when the GCCC and environmental insurance make both the parties and the lender comfortable with the risk, the transaction can close immediately. Only time will tell if, and the extent to which, the recent global economic difficulties for insurance companies and banks will change how GCCCs and related environmental insurance will be used to close transactions involving contaminated property.

 

This article originally ran in the February 23, 2009 issue of New Jersey Law Journal.