Current State of Dry Cleaner Programs January 29, 2016

Transcription

1 Current State of Dry Cleaner Programs January 29, 2016

2 What is the Issue? Banks keep getting funding requests for dry cleaners High probability for contamination Costly cleanup Low probability of taking title in event of foreclosure unless there is a solid plan in place How can we help mitigate risks associated with dry cleaner lending? 2

3 Put Differently Quality of loan request Funding Request High Probability of Contamination Costly Cleanup Let s make sure we don t mistake an asset for a liability Low Probability of Taking Title Risk Mitigation 3

4 Perchloroethylene On September 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued national regulations to control air emissions of perchloroethylene from dry cleaners. The regulation affects all dry cleaners who use perchloroethylene about 30,000 dry cleaners nationally. 4

5 Risks & Potential Costs >70% of past and present dry cleaners have releases Clean-up costs range from $10,000s to several million $500,000 average cleanup cost *Source: CCIM Institute 5

6 Major Risks to Banks Credit Risk (significant contamination) Continued obligations to assess and remediate How does the release impact the borrower's ability to repay their loan? Risk mitigants? Strength of borrower? Guarantees? Insurance? Escrow? Fund? Reputational risk Vapor issues associated with releases that often have not been fully assessed Knowledge risk We may get loan requests in 50 States, but are we equipped to properly opine on risk mitigation tools in all 50 States? 6

7 Solution Education through development of a Dry Cleaner Tip Sheet ERM Groups and affiliates need to be focused on being problem solvers/ solution finders How can we use these trust fund programs to our competitive advantage and help facilitate deals? How do we bridge the gap between owner/operators and bank s risk tolerances? 7

8 States with Funds & Associated States States with Dry Cleaning Funds States with alternative cleanup programs (Brownfields, UST funds) 8

9 Program Types There are basically two types of state dry cleaner remediation programs: those that provide reimbursement to parties who conduct cleanups at drycleaner facilities, and those in which the state agency directs the cleanup at dry cleaning facilities. State Led programs: Florida, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas Reimbursement: Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Both: Oregon 9

10 Tip Sheet The good, the bad and the ugly What do the different dry cleaning programs provide you? Liability protection? All states with Dry Cleaning Funds except Connecticut, Illinois and Wisconsin. Remediation assistance? Alabama (based on a priority system), Florida (tax credits), Illinois, Minnesota (where deemed eligible), Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Wisconsin Risk-based approaches? North Carolina, Oregon, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas

11 Tip Sheet Alternatives to fund? Voluntary programs Unless there are hazardous waste violations, sites are funneled into the voluntary program. Virginia (provides liability protection), Maryland, In the states that do not have a formal drycleaning program, the state superfund program handles the assessment and cleanup of contaminated drycleaning sites. Delaware, New York, California, Alaska Other New Jersey with LSRP program

12 Tip Sheet Drawbacks? Insolvency of funds? Fund financing from solvent taxes and receipt surcharges is decreasing due to the decline of perc usage as a drycleaning solvent. This decrease can be attributed to facilities closing, switching to non-chlorinated solvents or consolidating multiple operations to one location. Connecticut suffers from a lack of sufficient funding generated by the 1% gross receipt surcharge to meet the significant demand for cleanup funding across the state. Other states low on funds include Alabama and Kansas Not currently accepting applications Wisconsin and Missouri Prioritization system States that direct the remediation use a scoring system to determine which sites they will address first. Most systems include looking at possible receptors, the media in which contamination occurs, the geologic conditions, the toxicity and concentration of the contaminants at a particular site/facility, and the likelihood of catastrophic consequences. In addition, some scoring systems look at historical factors including the operating history of the facility. Some state systems also look at cost effectiveness in determining the priority for a site/facility. Other issues Long lead times Alabama, Connecticut (5 years) No budget for 2016, so no reimbursements - Illinois 12

13 Alabama Dry Cleaning Fund Alabama Drycleaning Environmental Response Trust Fund (DERTF) Started in 2000 and no sunset date. No funds can be expended if fund balance falls below $1,000,000 unless an emergency exists Funding Method: Reimbursement 13

14 Alabama Dry Cleaning Fund Who is covered? Owners/Operators of active dry cleaners including "dry stores", "route sales" or other facilities that have dry cleaning performed off-site. Benefits for Participation? Participants released from all state environmental liability. Funding cap: $250,000 /year/site Deductible: $10,000 from dry cleaner, or $50,000 from wholesale distributor Annual dollars generated: In 2012, $978,593 14

15 New California Fund Perc phase out in California by California Senate Bill 445, signed in Nov. 2014, added hazardous substances to the list of items eligible for its UST cleanup fund. One of its provisions is a new Site Cleanup Subaccount (SCSA) for investigating and cleaning up contaminated sites without regard to the source of the contamination. With this, assessment, monitoring and cleanup for dry cleaners will be covered. 15

16 SB 445 Site Cleanup Subaccount Program- SCAP $19.5 Million FY 2015/16 Eligible Applicants Applicants w/eligible projects Eligible Projects Identify the source of surface or groundwater contamination. Remediate the harm or threat of harm to human health, safety, and the environment caused by existing or threatened surface or groundwater contamination. Regulatory agency has issued a directive, unless infeasible Responsible Party lacks financial resources

17 Other Eligibility Requirements Regulatory agency has issued a directive, unless infeasible Responsible Party lacks financial resources 17

18 Applying for Funding Applications are accepted online through the Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool (FAAST): Pre-Application Final Application (with supplemental information).

19 How to Apply The Pre-Application is available in FAAST and the Final Application will be available soon. Details are provided to subscribers on the e- mail Lyris list and via the website. FAAST tutorials area available online: faast.shtml If a community has a hardship, technical assistance providers will be available to assist with electronic submittal. 19

20 Evaluating Applications Five Considerations in the Statue Significant threat to human health or the environment Disadvantaged or small community impact Cost and environmental benefit of cleanup No other funding source(s) available other than SCAP Other State Water Board considerations 20

21 SCAP Grants Schedule 2015/16 Pre-Application August 3 November 2, 2015 (for first group of applicants) Pre-Applications are accepted continuously. Final SCAP Application Requirements available for applicants January 2016 Review of applications Early 2016 State Water Board Consideration of 1st Project List Early st Grant Agreements First half 2016 Note: SCAP is projected to sunset on December 31,

22 Funding & Reimbursement Funds for SCAP are generated through a 3-mil set aside from California s two-cent petroleum storage fee. Grant recipients are assigned a budget based on the estimated cost of the projected work. No fees or deductibles. As the work is completed, reimbursement requests are submitted to the Fund for review of reasonable & necessary costs. 22

23 Further Information The excerpt covering SCAP (Health & Safety Code ) can be found at: programs/grants_loans/scap/docs/ excerpt_scap.pdf 23

24 Wrap Up What value do the dry-cleaning funds have in the due diligence and lending process? Can they be an effective risk mitigant tool? How can they best be utilized if underwritten (e.g., structure with escrow, insurance, etc.) What role could EBA play in facilitating change? 24

25 Presenters: Peter Dollander Environmental Risk Officer BB&T Bank 5130 Parkway Plaza Blvd Charlotte, NC p: Michael T. Kulka, P.E. Founder and CEO PM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC West Eleven Mile Road Berkley, MI p: m: Tim E. Post, PG, CHG Supervising Engineering Geologist ECAP/SCAP/EAR/Orphan Sites/LOPs UST Cleanup Fund p: