The Nickel Report

On April 19, 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a pre-publication copy of its much-anticipated final rule adding two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to the list of “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). The rule will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

On 6 September, the US EPA released its proposed rule to add perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) to the list of hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund.

If finalized, these hazardous substance designations could have a significant impact on many industries, from creating new reporting obligations to increased compliance, enforcement and litigation risks related to site cleanup.

Click here to read the full article, published in Chemical Watch.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Guam v. United States (No. 20-382), a case involving liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The case gives the Court an opportunity to better delineate the boundary between “cost recovery” claims under section 107, and “contribution” claims under section 113. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607, 9613(f). The Court will specifically address what kinds of settlement agreements trigger a section 113 contribution claim and its corresponding three-year statute of limitations.

On November 24, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Prepublication Notice finalizing its proposed decisions to not impose Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 108(b) financial assurance requirements on three industries (Industries):

• Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution;
• Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, and
• Chemical Manufacturing.

EPA’s final rules neither remove any existing requirements nor impose additional, new requirements.  The final rulemakings will not affect EPA’s authority to take CERCLA response or enforcement action with respect to any particular facility or industry, nor will they affect EPA’s authority under other environmental statutes that may be applicable to the facility.  The final rules also will not affect EPA’s existing practice of imposing financial assurance requirements in CERCLA settlements and orders, which already provide protection against bankruptcies and other financial calamities that may impact performing parties at Superfund sites. [1]

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Atlantic Richfield Company v. Christian that private landowners at a Superfund site near Butte, Montana, can pursue state law claims in state court seeking “restoration damages” for cleanup actions that go beyond the EPA-selected remedial action. The Court also held, however, that these landowners are potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and, as a consequence, must obtain EPA approval of the restoration plans before they can be implemented. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Court’s opinion, in which five other justices joined.  Justice Alito wrote a dissenting opinion declining to sign on to the majority’s conclusion “that state courts have jurisdiction [under state law] to entertain ‘challenges’ to EPA-approved CERCLA plans,” taking the position that it was unnecessary for the Court to address this question.  In a separate dissent, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, disagreed with the conclusion that the landowners were “PRPs” who needed EPA’s approval to conduct more robust cleanup at their properties than otherwise required by EPA.

Last month, the Supreme Court held oral argument in a case that addressed cleanup obligations for potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at Superfund sites. In Atlantic Richfield Company v. Christian, a company tasked with remediating one of the nation’s largest Superfund sites is urging the Supreme Court to overturn a Montana Supreme Court decision that permitted residents to sue the company for additional restoration damages, despite its ongoing cleanup efforts under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly referred to as the Superfund law, directed the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create a list of the country’s most hazardous waste sites. Sites are proposed to be placed on this “National Priorities List” (or NPL as it is known to environmental law professionals) if they exceed a certain risk score, or Hazard Ranking, and added to the List if the ranking is confirmed after a formal notice-and-comment process. A detailed set of regulations called the National Contingency Plan (NCP) governs how sites placed on the NPL will be investigated, alternative remedies evaluated, and a final remedy selected and then implemented. The NPL, the NCP, and various EPA guidance memoranda have established what practitioners acknowledge is an imperfect but generally workable process in which EPA and states work with potentially liable parties to manage cleanups at NPL sites.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded a series of eight Superfund Listening Sessions between May 21 and June 18 to explain a number of initiatives to reform the Superfund program and promote the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated sites. The PowerPoint presentations used in these sessions can be accessed here. While informative, the sessions and PowerPoint slides used by the speakers also raise some interesting questions about potential changes in the remedy selection process and the restoration of damaged natural resources.

We are serious.  And don’t call us Shirley.

So EPA sent your company a dreaded Request for Information (“RFI”).  What do you do now?  If you’ve never been through this process before, you likely have a lot running through your head:

• Did our company do something wrong?  Is my company under investigation?
• Is this EPA’s way of asking for my help to improve its regulations?
• Do I have to answer this?
• How can I possibly compile all this information in 30 days?
• Do we need a lawyer to help us respond?
• What about confidential information?  EPA is asking for customer or supplier information.  Isn’t that private?