CERCLA

Subscribe to CERCLA

The advanced notice of proposed rulemaking signals DOI’s interest in developing faster and more cost-effective methods to quantify natural resource damage claims.

By Kegan A. Brown, Gary P. Gengel, G. Jack Mathews, and Thomas C. Pearce

On January 18, 2023, the US Department of the Interior (DOI) Office of Restoration and Damage Assessment issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the Notice) requesting feedback on possible amendments to the “simplified” natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) regulations for discharges of oil or hazardous substances (known as “Type A” NRDA regulations). DOI proposes to “modernize the Type A process and develop a more flexible and enduring rule” by, among other things, broadening the universe of natural resource damage (NRD) claims that may be subject to Type A procedures.[1] DOI has requested public comments on possible revisions to the Type A NRDA regulations by March 20, 2023.

The notice is another step in EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap and emphasizes potential CERCLA enforcement.

By Kegan A. Brown, Gary P. Gengel, Thomas C. Pearce, and Taylor R. West

On January 12, 2023, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice to solicit public comments on its National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives (NECI) for Fiscal Years 2024-2027. The notice proposes a new NECI to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination, with a “focus on implementing the commitments to action made in EPA’s 2021-2024 [PFAS] Strategic Roadmap.”[1]

The proposed PFAS NECI emphasizes EPA’s intention to identify and pursue potentially responsible parties for PFAS contamination, including under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

A revised standard highlights the need for parties to consider non-scope considerations when conducting environmental assessments for transactions.

By Kegan A. Brown, David S. Langer, Thomas C. Pearce, and G. Jack Mathews

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Committee on Environmental Assessment, Risk Management and Corrective Action recently released an updated standard for conducting Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs). The newly revised standard, known as the ASTM E1527-21 standard, includes specific directions for how emerging contaminants, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), may be addressed in ESAs. Parties conducting due diligence or involved in transactions for which an ESA will likely be used to assess more than just the “all appropriate inquiry” component of a CERCLA defense should be aware of what the new standard requires for PFAS, especially as regulatory standards evolve or are adopted on a state and federal level. Parties should be aware that the new standard does not create any requirements that Phase I ESAs address any PFAS until EPA acts to list the specific PFAS at issue as a CERCLA hazardous substance, so there is a risk that a Phase I ESA will not cover a significant potential area of environmental concern.

EPA’s decision to forego financial requirements will likely face opposition by eNGOs.

By Claudia M. O’Brien and Stacey L. VanBelleghem

On July 2, 2019, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its proposed decision not to impose new financial responsibility requirements on the Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution industry under Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), following nearly a decade of litigation, stakeholder input, and EPA assessment.

Section 108(b) and EPA’s Path to This Decision

CERLCA imposes a joint and several liability scheme that holds certain entities (e.g., certain owners and operators, generators, arrangers, and transporters of hazardous substances) liable for the costs or damages associated with environmental remediation. Section 108(b) of CERCLA authorizes EPA[i] to develop regulations requiring owners or operators of certain “classes of facilities [to] establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances.” Section 108(b)(2) identifies factors to consider to determine the level of financial assurances necessary in light of the level of risk. These factors include:  “the payment experience of the [Hazardous Substance Superfund], commercial insurers, courts settlements and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction.”

By Taiga Takahashi

A popular concept in renewable-energy-project siting is the use of contaminated properties for potential projects.  EPA’s initiative, “RE-Powering America’s Land,” reflects the federal government’s encouragement of this concept.  But the use of contaminated land presents its own risks to developers, industry, property owners, and state and local governments.  Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”),[1] owners and operators of contaminated land may be held jointly and severally…