Introduction
The terms “Activity and Use Limitation” and “AUL” may well have originated in Massachusetts, where AULs play a significant role in helping to close out sites under the state’s innovative and award-winning privatized hazardous waste site cleanup program. The Massachusetts program has permitted and, in some ways, encouraged the use of Activity and Use Limitations (“AULs”) since 1993.
As a result, there is more experience with AULs in Massachusetts than in many other states. In addition, that experience has lead to modifications to the original program (both by statute and through regulation), a remarkably detailed guidance document issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (the “DEP”), and several interesting enforcement and compliance assistance efforts on the part of the DEP. All of this has taken place in the context of a fair amount of lobbying of both DEP and the state legislature on behalf of real estate interests, seeking to be able to use the flexibility offered by AULs to redevelop Brownfields and other contaminated properties; PRPs, primarily interested in controlling response costs; and environmentalists, focused on minimizing the ability of anyone to leave behind any contamination at a site.
In light of the focus on environmental issues in Massachusetts, not surprisingly the journey thus far has been interesting and hopefully of educational value to others seeking to implement programs involving the use of AULs.
Genesis and Purpose of Activity and Use Limitations in Massachusetts
In 1983, Chapter 21E of the Massachusetts General Laws (the Massachusetts Superfund Statute) was enacted in response to the public’s demand that the state address the cleanup of oil and hazardous material disposal sites. In 1988, the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (the “MCP”) was implemented to help achieve this goal, those regulations being found at 310 CMR 40.0000 et seq. Unfortunately, however, neither the public nor the legislature provided the DEP with the resources necessary to accomplish this objective, and so in short order a significant backlog of cases developed. In particular, state signoffs were required at each milestone to move through the site cleanup process, and the state was unable to oversee most of the sites that were brought to its attention.
From a transactional perspective, two problems were particularly significant. First, if a site did not have significant contamination issues or a sufficiently high political profile, then getting the DEP’s attention was very difficult. Second, the notification provisions in Chapter 21E and in the early versions of the MCP were interpreted both by the DEP and the private bar as meaning that if any oil or hazardous material were identified at a site (i.e., one part per billion would be enough), then notification to the DEP was required. As buyers, sellers and lenders became more sensitive to environmental issues, the number of site assessments performed increased and, accordingly, so did the number of sites for which notification to DEP was required. Environmentalists were not happy with this situation either in that, while the number of identified sites in the state program consistently grew, very few of those sites were being addressed and, if necessary, cleaned up.
In large part due to this growing backlog, amendments to Chapter 21E were enacted in 1992 and revisions to the MCP were implemented in 1993 with the aim of privatizing the waste site cleanup program to the extent feasible. The concept was fairly simple: the government did not have the resources to address each and every site, and many of the sites in the MCP system were not significant enough for it to make sense for the government to address them. The new risk-based program was designed to leverage private resources, particularly with respect to less significantly contaminated sites, and to allow DEP to focus its resources on the sites that were the most serious from a risk perspective, as well as on site discovery efforts and policy issues.
Activity and Use Limitations were first authorized in Massachusetts in this context by the 1992 amendments to Chapter 21E. The details of both the privatized program and AULs in Massachusetts were fleshed out in the 1993 amendments to the MCP, as discussed more fully below.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
The statutory authority for AULs in Massachusetts is found in Section 6 of Chapter 21E, as amended in 1992. Perhaps the most important portion of those amendments is the language that provides “the [DEP] may itself record, or may cause, allow or require the owner of the property [to which the AUL will apply] to record, notice of the restrictions of the use of such property or of the modification or release of such restrictions.” This language, implemented through the 1993 MCP in the context of the program’s privatization goal, has resulted in one type of AUL being available for use by private parties that does not require a specific DEP signoff before that AUL may be implemented.
There are a number of sections in the MCP, which pertain to the use of Activity and Use Limitations in Massachusetts. Most of these provisions are listed in the attached table, and many are discussed below. In addition, the DEP has prepared a remarkably detailed guidance document, which was issued in May, 1999 after considerable review and discussion. This document may be particularly helpful for those new to AULs in Massachusetts and for those considering developing a program involving the use of AULs. Note, however, that while this guidance document may be a useful reference, that is not necessarily the same thing as saying that such a document needs to be so lengthy. Copies of the cover sheets and Table of Contents from the guidance are attached, and a copy of the complete document is available at the DEP’s website at http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwsc/finalpol.htm. See Active Policy WSC #99-300: Guidance on Implementing Activity and Use Limitations dated May 20, 1999 (the “Guidance”).
Types of Activity and Use Limitations
The MCP provides for three types of Activity and Use Limitations: (i) a Grant of Environmental Restriction; (ii) an Environmental Restriction imposed by the DEP; and (iii) a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation. The Notice of Activity and Use Limitation is the type of AUL that may be implemented by private parties without the need for a DEP signoff in advance. See 310 CMR 40.1070.
(a) Grant of Environmental Restriction
As noted in the Guidance, a Grant of Environmental Restriction is a legally enforceable contract and conveys property interests to the DEP. The Department, as the grantee or recipient of these interests, has the right to enforce the terms of the Grant if those terms are violated. As a result, a Grant offers a greater degree of control over the use of a property in comparison to a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation, the other voluntary form of AUL available for use by private parties in Massachusetts.
A Grant of Environmental Restriction also involves several steps not required in connection with implementing a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation, and some of those steps are somewhat involved. For this reason, Grants of Environmental Restriction have been implemented much less frequently than Notices of Activity and Use Limitation. In particular, according to DEP’s database as of December, 2001, seven Grants of Environmental Restriction have been implemented, while 1,339 Notices of Activity and Use Limitation have been implemented in the same timeframe.
The additional steps to implement a Grant of Environmental Restriction include the following: the Grant must be submitted to the DEP for the signature of the Commissioner. To obtain such a signature, the property owner must submit a Grant application to the DEP for review and approval. This review, however, only involves a determination by the DEP that the application is administratively and technically complete, and does not include a review of the adequacy of the response actions to which the Grant pertains. (These response actions are, however, separately subject to audit by the DEP, as are any MCP response actions undertaken by a private party.) In addition, a Grant of Environmental Restriction must provide an easement to the DEP for the purpose of providing access to the subject property to inspect the area subject to the Grant, both to separately ensure compliance with its terms and to conduct response actions consistent with Chapter 21E and the MCP. Further, a property owner interested in implementing a Grant of Environmental Restriction must obtain and record Subordination Agreements from any and all holders of a prior interest in the area restricted by the Grant and any and all holders of a prior interest in the subject property “insofar as such interest affects those interests created under the Grant of Environmental Restriction.” See 310 CMR 40.1071(2)(m) and 310 CMR 40.1071(4)(a) and (b). In addition, a Certification of Title must be issued to the DEP by an insured title examiner certifying title in the owner of the property and must be included in the application package. 310 CMR 40.1072(2)(c).
A number of other requirements apply to Grants of Environmental Restriction, which also pertain to Notices of Activity and Use Limitation. These include the requirement that a Grant must be prepared using a form, which is included in the MCP, and must be recorded at the Registry or filed with the Land Court. The Grant must also include a description of the subject property and the disposal site at that property. (Under the MCP, a “disposal site” is the portion of the property where uncontrolled oil and/or hazardous material has come to be located. See the definition of this term in Section 40.0006 of the MCP for a more complete description of its meaning.) The description of the subject property and the disposal site must include both the street address and a metes and bounds description of the property and the disposal site.
A Grant must also include the name(s) of the property owner(s), the DEP Release Tracking Number for the site, and an Activity and Use Limitation Opinion provided by a Licensed Site Professional or “LSP.” LSPs are non-DEP personnel licensed by the state to provide guidance to parties performing response actions under the MCP. While a separate chapter could be written concerning the role of LSPs under the MCP, briefly summarized, these individuals are licensed by an independent Board of Registration, have their own professional organization and, most importantly, issue opinions (such as those attached to AULs) regarding cleanup end points and recommendations concerning how to proceed at specific sites pursuant to the MCP. These opinions, which were first authorized in connection with the 1992 changes to the statute and the 1993 changes to the regulations, have become accepted in commerce and are now relied on by both private parties and (perhaps not quite as much) the DEP.
A Grant of Environmental Restriction must also include a precise description of the site activities and uses that are prohibited and those that may be permitted, a precise description of any ongoing obligations and/or conditions that in the opinion of an LSP are necessary, and an agreement to incorporate the Environmental Restriction (either in full or by reference) into all deeds, easements, mortgages, leases, licenses, occupancy agreements, or any other instruments conveying an interest and/or a right to use the property. Notarized signatures of the property owner(s) and the LSP who signed the Grant are also required. This list of requirements is not complete, and certain other matters that must be included in a Grant of Environmental Restriction are set forth in the regulations. Several of the requirements set forth above, however, are addressed in the form that must be used to implement a Grant of Environmental Restriction, a copy of which is included in the MCP. See 310 CMR 40.1099 (Form 1072A: Grant of Environmental Restriction).
One unique feature concerning Grants of Environmental Restriction is their potential use with respect to groundwater. Generally, in Massachusetts an AUL may not be used to restrict the use of groundwater. See 310 CMR 40.1074(1)(d) and Section 2.6 of the Guidance at pages 10 and 11 (a Notice of Use Activity and Use Limitation may not be used to restrict groundwater use). However, a Grant of Environmental Restriction may be used, and is in fact required by the MCP, with respect to one aspect of groundwater contamination. A Grant is specifically required to prohibit the ongoing use of what had been an existing private well for use as a drinking water supply where drinking water standards (GW-1 standards under the MCP) will not be met. In this case, the Grant can only be used after the property that had been supplied by the well has been connected to a public drinking water supply. See 310 CMR 40.0932(5)(d). Note that, while there are some potential difficulties associated with implementing a Grant of Environmental Restriction, those difficulties and the associated costs may seem minor in comparison to the difficulties and costs associated with meeting drinking water standards that might otherwise apply to certain sites.
(b) Environmental Restrictions Imposed by the DEP
The MCP provides the DEP with the authority to impose an Environmental Restriction at any disposal site at which the DEP conducts a response action. See 310 CMR 40.1073. This type of AUL is rarely implemented by the DEP, and is only briefly mentioned in the Guidance. Based on recent conversations with DEP personnel in connection with the preparation of this chapter, it is not clear whether DEP has yet imposed such an Environmental Restriction.
(c) Notice of Activity and Use Limitation
By far the most frequently used form of AUL in Massachusetts is a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation (an “NAUL”). The primary reason this form of AUL is used much more often than a Grant of Environmental Restriction is that it is much easier to implement. In particular, no DEP signature or advance approval is required, and no Subordination Agreements or title report are required.
Although much easier to implement, an NAUL is not a legally enforceable contract, while a Grant of Environmental Restriction is. An NAUL also does not convey a property interest to the DEP, although the DEP can enforce the terms of an NAUL through its enforcement of the MCP. An NAUL, however, clearly does operate as a notice of record concerning its terms and requirements at the relevant Registry of Deeds or Registry District of the Land Court.
While a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation is less complicated than a Grant of Environmental Restriction, it still must be recorded at the Registry or filed with the Land Court, and must include specific information concerning the location of the property (including its street address), a metes and bounds description of the property and the disposal site at that property, the name(s) of the property owner(s), and the DEP Release Tracking Number for the site. An NAUL must also include a precise description of site activities and uses permitted at the property and a precise description of any obligations and/or conditions for conducting permitted site activities, an agreement to reference the Notice in all deeds, easements, mortgages, leases, licenses, occupancy agreements, or any other instruments that convey an interest and/or a right to use the property, and the notarized signatures of the property owner(s) and the LSP who signed the NAUL. A Notice of Activity and Use Limitation must also include an Activity and Use Limitation Opinion concerning the disposal site provided by the LSP for the site. Again, many of the requirements set forth above are addressed by the form included in the MCP, which must be used when implementing an NAUL. See 310 CMR 40.1099 (Form 1075: Notice of Activity and Use Limitation).
Initially DEP, LSPs and attorneys believed that only Grants of Environmental Restriction could be used to address contamination in groundwater since under the MCP only Grants may be used to restrict the use of groundwater. However, MCP practice since the 1993 amendments to the regulations has resulted in one other situation being identified where an AUL (either in the form of a Grant or an NAUL) may be used to address contamination remaining in groundwater. (Note the distinction between
(a) restricting the use of groundwater and (b) addressing contamination remaining in groundwater.) Specifically, if a remedy uses “Exposure Pathway elimination measures,” such as a venting system or a vapor barrier below a building to prevent the migration of volatile contaminants from groundwater into the air inside an existing building, then an AUL must be used to insure that the relevant Exposure Pathway elimination measures are maintained. See 310 CMR 40.1012(2)(b). While a review of the relevant MCP language does not make this obvious, both MCP practice and the Guidance confirm this result. See the Guidance, Section 2.6, page 10.
When an AUL is and is not Required
The MCP specifies several circumstances where an AUL is required if contamination is being left behind at a site when that site is closed out under the regulations. See 310 CMR 40.1012(2). First, AULs are required at all disposal sites for which a Response Action Outcome (an “RAO”) (i.e., a completion statement) and the related risk characterization analysis are based on the restriction or limitation of activities and uses at the site. In other words, if the LSP managing the site concludes that limitations concerning the use of the site must be imposed in order for that LSP to be able to conclude that the site may exit the MCP process, then an AUL is required. An LSP may reach this conclusion due to a variety of factors, such as cleanup levels achieved, the contaminants present at the site, reasonably foreseeable uses at the site, and the receptors at the site.
The MCP also specifies that an Activity and Use Limitation must be imposed at any disposal site at which an RAO has been achieved based on eliminating an Exposure Pathway. Roughly, the regulations describe an Exposure Pathway as the mechanism by which human or environmental receptors come in contact with or take in oil and/or hazardous material. See 310 CMR 40.0006. For example, if the RAO for the site has been achieved by using pavement to block certain receptors from coming in contact with subsurface soils, then an AUL must be used to lock in the elimination of that Exposure Pathway.
The third instance in which an AUL is required, and a Grant of Environmental Restriction in particular must be used, is where a previously existing private well has been abandoned and the subject property has been connected to a public water supply system. As noted above, in order to file an RAO in this instance, a Grant must have been implemented to lock in that scenario.
The MCP also specifies situations where AULs are not required. See 310 CMR 40.1012(3). These situations include where the concentrations of oil and/or hazardous material at a disposal site have been reduced to background levels. In addition, Activity and Use Limitations are not required for disposal sites characterized using standardized risk characterization methods set forth in the MCP if the levels of oil and/or hazardous material at the site are at or below the applicable residential use soil standards identified in the regulations. AULs are also not required for disposal sites characterized using a site specific risk characterization permitted under the MCP, where the contamination levels at the site pose No Significant Risk (the MCP close out standard) and the risk characterization that was performed to reach that conclusion did not assume any limitations on site usage. The MCP specifies other instances in which an AUL is not required, although these are fairly specific scenarios. Id.
Changes in Property Use and Amending an AUL
(a) Amending or Releasing an AUL
The MCP recognizes that conditions at a site may change, both in terms of new or different uses being considered for the site (which were not evaluated at the time the AUL was originally implemented) and/or that additional response actions may be performed at the site, thus allowing previously prohibited uses to be permitted. Accordingly, the MCP provides that an AUL may be amended to change the list of prohibited and/or permitted site activities and uses. Any such amendment, however, must ensure that a condition of No Significant Risk is maintained at the site. In particular, any contemplated activity or use at a site that is not specifically permitted by an AUL, which may invalidate a finding of No Significant Risk, must be evaluated by an LSP before any such changes are implemented. See 310 CMR 40.1080(1).
The MCP includes forms to amend both Grants of Environmental Restriction and Notices of Activity and Use Limitation. Once completed, these amendments must be recorded and/or filed as appropriate, and copies must be provided to DEP. Not surprisingly, the process for amending a Grant is more complicated than that which applies to amending an NAUL, since such an amendment for a Grant must be reviewed and approved by the DEP.
Note that if a party is directed by DEP as a result of a DEP audit to make changes to an AUL, the process used to make the changes depends on the date of the original AUL. NAULs created before October 29, 1999 should be amended according to the process set out in Instructions for Implementing an Amendment and Ratification of Notice of Activity and Use Limitation posted on the DEP website on August 7, 2000. Post-October 29, 1999 NAULs may be amended using Form 1082B and the procedures set out at 310 CMR 40.1080.
If, as result of additional cleanup activities, an AUL is no longer necessary at a site, then the AUL may be released. An LSP opinion is necessary, and the regulations specify the process by which to do so, both with respect to Grants of Environmental Restriction and Notices of Activity and Use Limitation. See 310 CMR 40.1083. Further, the regulations recognize that scrivners’ errors and other non-substantive errors or omissions may be identified in NAULs, which may be corrected by implementing a Confirmatory Activity and Use Limitation. See 310 CMR 40.1085.
1998 Massachusetts Brownfields Legislation
(a) Required AUL Audit Process
In 1998, the Massachusetts Legislature enacted Brownfields legislation, which was designed to encourage the reuse of contaminated properties. See 1998 Mass. Acts Chapter 206. As part of the negotiations that led to the enactment of this legislation, environmentalists were able to include within the legislation a requirement that all AULs be audited by DEP. See 1998 Mass. Acts Chapter 206, Section 43. DEP in implementing this provision has concluded that it applies to AULs filed both before and after the legislation.
The initial reaction of the real estate community was that this provision meant AULs had fallen into disfavor, a result that pleased some environmentalists. DEP, in an effort to maintain the viability of the risk-based MCP program, attempted to implement the mandatory audit provisions in a manner that would not discourage the use of AULs in appropriate circumstances, while encouraging better practice. The regulated community has adjusted to the mandatory audit approach, and has continued to use AULs where appropriate.
The scope of a DEP AUL audit can vary from a fairly brief file review to a site visit and interview of a person associated with the AUL combined with a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant response actions and all materials submitted to DEP in connection with filing the AUL (i.e., including the RAO for the site). DEP is also broadly empowered to take any other actions it believes necessary to determine whether the AUL is in compliance with Chapter 21E and the MCP.
At the conclusion of the audit, DEP often issues a Notice of Audit Findings.
The Notice will include a discussion of the steps necessary to correct any deficiencies that may have been found by DEP. In connection with the correction of identified deficiencies, DEP may require the party to complete a written Audit Follow-up Plan. After the activities of the Follow-up Plan are completed, a Completion Statement must be prepared by an LSP and submitted to DEP. If no deficiencies are found, the Notice will say so.
(b) AUL Liability Provisions
The 1998 legislation also included a provision intended to address the question of what happens if one party has imposed an AUL on a property and later sells the property, and subsequently the new owner violates the terms of the prior AUL. Provided a specified MCP endpoint has been reached, the statute provides protection for the former owner from liability to the state under Chapter 21E and to third parties for contribution and response action costs for property damage under Chapter 21E, and property damage under common law for claims that arose due to the violation. See 1998 Mass. Acts Chapter 206, Section 26 and Chapter 21E, Section 6 as so amended.
A significant and not particularly logical exclusion from this liability relief was also made part of the legislation. Id. If the prior owner has conducted or has been required to conduct a cleanup pursuant to CERCLA or RCRA, then the liability relief is not available. Note that this language is not limited to the site to which the AUL pertains. Needless to say, businesses with operations that led to CERCLA or RCRA liability at a location anywhere across the country did not appreciate this exclusion. Further, while both this limited AUL liability protection provision and the AUL audit requirement discussed above were enacted as part of legislation intended to encourage Brownfields reuse in Massachusetts, neither of these provisions encouraged the use of AULs, which clearly remain an important part of Brownfields redevelopment efforts.
1999 MCP Amendments
A number of amendments were made to the MCP effective October 29, 1999, which concern AULs. Many of these changes were designed to implement another requirement of the 1998 Brownfields Act, which was to ensure that AULs are prepared and recorded in a manner that is consistent with the filing requirements of other, similar real estate conveyancing documents.
(a) Ownership Certification and Authority
The person signing the NAUL must now submit a statement to DEP with the NAUL certifying that the person or entity identified as the property owner in the NAUL in fact owned the property at the time the NAUL was recorded. 310 CMR 40.1074(1)(f). In addition, if someone other than an individual signing on their own behalf is executing the NAUL, then documentation concerning that person’s signatory authority must be attached as an exhibit to the NAUL. 310 CMR 40.1074(2)(c).
(b) Necessary Documents to be Submitted to DEP with an NAUL
Language was added to the MCP to expand the list of documents that must be submitted to DEP in connection with implementing an NAUL. 310 CMR 40.1074(4). As a result, within 30 days of recording and/or registering a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation, a property owner must submit to DEP the following:
(i) a certified Registry copy of the Notice bearing the book and page/instrument number and/or document number;
(ii) a Registry copy of the required survey plan(s) referenced in the Notice, bearing the plan book/plan numbers(s); and
(iii) if the property subject to the Activity and Use Limitation is unregistered land, a Registry copy of the deed into the owner of the property, bearing the marginal reference required by 310 CMR 40.1074(3).
The idea here is that with these documents DEP will have evidence that the NAUL was, in fact, properly recorded. In addition, DEP now receives copies of documents showing that the Notice of Activity and Use Limitations has been effectively noted in the chain of title. The only practical problem is that, at least for now, it is not uncommon for delays on the part of the Registry and/or the Land Court to result in the inability of a party to meet the relevant 30-day deadline.
(c) Notice to Record Interest Holders
Based on the 1999 amendments, the MCP now requires that at least 45 days advance notice of an NAUL must be given to “current holders of any record interest(s) in the area subject to the proposed Notice (including without limitation, owners, lessees, tenants, mortgagees, and holders of easements or licenses)….” See 310 CMR 40.1074(1)(e). This notice must be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, notifying the interest holder(s) of the location of any oil or hazardous material in the AUL area, and the terms of the AUL. Id. DEP policy is that the 45 day notice may be waived if all of the interest holder(s) agree to do so in writing.
This provision was intended by DEP to inform interest holders (usually through utility easements) about site conditions that will assist the safe exercise of those interests. However, perhaps even more so than the now required AUL audits, this provision has made implementing AULs more difficult. Notwithstanding the efforts of the LSPs and attorneys involved, the timing of the completion and filing of RAOs and AULs, as well as the associated supporting work, is often driven by transactional considerations, which at best are not sympathetic to this 45-day time frame. At a minimum, this 45-day waiting period almost always becomes a critical path item in filing an RAO. The added time and expense of the now required title examination associated with implementing an NAUL, added to the possibility of not being able to find a current address for holders of very old record interests, has not helped either.
Other Issues and Considerations
(a) All or a Portion of a Property
Under the MCP, AULs may be implemented for all or a portion of a property (e.g., for the entire parcel or only the contaminated portion of the parcel) and for all or a portion of the MCP disposal site (depending on the results of the risk characterization, not all of the MCP site may need an AUL).
For example, if only a small portion of a property is contaminated, it may make sense to go to the expense of preparing the AUL so that it only applies to that portion of the property. In addition, sometimes at particularly complicated sites, different AULs may be implemented with respect to different portions of the site.
The point is that thought should be given in advance not only to the terms of the AUL, but to those areas to which it will apply.
(b) AUL Documentation: Environmental or Real Estate?
An AUL is both an environmental document, which may be required by the MCP, and a real estate document, subject to an entirely separate collection of practices, procedures, and requirements. For this reason, it is important to have an environmental lawyer involved in the preparation of an AUL, and to have available real estate counsel in certain circumstances. One of the problems initially encountered in implementing AULs in Massachusetts was that LSPs, often due to budgetary pressures from their clients, sought to implement AULs without attorney input. The results were often unsatisfactory, particularly from DEP’s point of view.
(c) Massachusetts Brownfields Tax Credits
One other provision of the 1998 Massachusetts Brownfields Bill, which is important with respect to AULs, is that the Bill distinguishes between sites where AULs are and are not used. If all of the other criteria are satisfied (and there are a few), a site without an AUL will qualify for a 50% tax credit concerning the cost of the response actions, while a site with an AUL will only qualify for a 25% credit for the same costs. As a result, planning in advance and running the numbers concerning the available tax credits clearly makes sense.
Conclusion
Activity and Use Limitations in Massachusetts are now a very important part of both the state’s privatized waste site cleanup program and the state’s efforts to revitalize Brownfields. Although using AULs in Massachusetts is not simple and can be time consuming, the strategic use of these tools can substantially reduce the cost associated with site cleanup and can significantly speed up the timeframes for reaching MCP site closure. As a result, AULs are an important part of the state’s efforts to protect public health and conserve natural and economic resources through efficient and timely waste site cleanup efforts.
Prepared by law firm of Goulston & Storrs:
Ned Abelson, Esq.
William M. Seuch, Esq.
Jonathan Z. Pearlson, Esq.
Michael W. Parker, Esq.
Table: MCP Provisions concerning Activity and Use Limitations
|
Subpart A
|
§ 40.0006(12)
|
Definitions of Activity and Use Limitation, Background, Disposal Site, Environmental Restrictions, Exposure Pathway, No Significant Risk, Site and Site Activities and Uses |
|
§ 40.0019§ 40.0020
|
Violations of Environmental Restrictions and Response Action Outcomes |
|
Subpart I
|
§ 40.0923
|
Identification of Site Activities and Uses during risk chacterization; §40.0923(3)(b) and §40.0923(4) specifically reference AULs |
|
Subpart J
|
§ 40.1012
|
Application of Activity and Use Limitations |
|
§ 40.1070 –§ 40.1099
|
Implementation of Activity and Use Limitations, including Forms |
|
Subpart N
|
§ 40.1403(7)
|
Public Involvement Responsibilities for Implementing AULs and AUL changes |
|
|
|
go back to top
