Laserfiche WebLink
public health and safety. Section 554 does not limit abandonment to cases in which a debtor <br />has no unencumbered funds. Claims of environmental agencies have no special priority or <br />claim to a debtor's unencumbered funds. As this court previously determined, and as the <br />substantial weight of authority indicates, pre-petition environmental liabilities are entitled to <br />no special priority in bankruptry. Ohio v. Kovacs, 105 S. Ct. 705 (1985)." <br />The availability of unencumbered funds is relevant to the issue of <br />abandonment, if ever, only when abandonment would otherwise be improper under <br />Midlanric because of the need to eliminate immediate threats to public safety. In this case, <br />since there is no immediate threat to public health and safety, CF&I's abandonment of the <br />Quarry will not aggravate the current situation and the bonds provide substantial funds for <br />remediation. Conditioning CF&I's abandonment of the Quarry upon payment of estate <br />assets to cover the entire cost of remediation is inconsistent with fair and equal treatment <br />of other unsecured creditors. <br />As this court applies the factors for consideration provided in Franklin Signal <br />Corp., it finds that, under the circumstances of this case, application of the exception to <br />abandonment pronounced inMidlanric is not warranted. There is no showing of a cleaz and <br />imminent danger nor does there appeaz to be any great risk of harm or threat to public <br />safety. There is no showing that Colorado, who will be in possession of the Quarry upon <br />See aLro United Starer v. A'hizco, 841 F.2d 147 (6th C'tr. 1988)(reClamationobligotions relating <br />to pre-petitioa mining are claims subject to discharge); In rr Xaisa Suel Corp.. 87 B.R 662, 665 {Bankr. D. <br />Colo. 1988)(liabiliry for failure to reclaim land mined pre-petition 'are clearty'claims' within the meaning of <br />11 U.S.C. ¢ 101(4) and, as such, are subject to being deal[ with in a plan and discharged as part of the <br />Debtor's plan o[ reorgani~ation.7; In re Prince Coo! and Constr. Inc., 65 B.R 521 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1986)(pre- <br />petition reclamation claims are unsecured claims); In n N.P. Mining Co, Inc, 963 F.2d 1449 (11th Cir. <br />1992)(post-petition penalties relating to pre•petition strip mining are not entitled to administrative priority). <br /> <br />