On February 8, 2024, U.S. EPA proposed two new significant regulations that would expand its authority to require cleanup of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The scope of the proposed regulations and the potential facilities affected are discussed below.
Background on RCRA Program
To understand the potential
The term “game changer” has been thrown around quite a bit with regard to EPA’s intention to list PFOS and PFOA as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA. The reason it is a game changer is that it will greatly simplify the evidence needed to support cleanup claims at any site where PFOS or PFOS contamination exists.
Despite its limitations, most commercial and industrial property transactions rely on the Bona Fide Purchaser Defense (BFPD) to CERCLA as the principal means of protecting new owners from environmental liability. While EPA has adopted the “All Appropriate Inquiry” (AAI Rule) to provide some clarity to the steps necessary to qualify for the defense, there is
.png)
While the Trump Administrations primary environmental agenda has been focused on deregulation, one area EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has prioritized is Superfund (i.e. CERCLA). Superfund is meant to investigate and cleanup the dirtiest sites in the country. However, its long and complicated investigation, remedy selection and cleanup implementation processes have slowed cleanups to a crawl.
Late last year U.S. EPA enacted the "Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule" which constitutes a major overhaul of the federal hazardous waste regulations (RCRA) that apply to any generator of hazardous waste. The new rule impacts thousands of businesses, including even small generators of hazardous waste. EPA estimates that between 424,100 and 676,900
Following a failure of the dike at the Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee which received national attention, the Obama Administration announced it would re-evaluate regulation of coal combustion residuals (CCR) or coal ash.
The Administration’s key decision was whether to regulate CCR under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as
An interesting case involving the interplay of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and RCRA highlights the complexity of sites that trigger multiple environmental statutes. The U.S. District Court of Maryland in Sherrill, et al. v. The Mayor and the City Council of Baltimore, 2014 WL 3555956 ruled that an NPDES Construction Storm Water Permit
.jpg)
When most people think of businesses that handle hazardous waste, they think of manufacturing and other industrial companies. The classic image is the storage of 55 gallon drums marked with placards indicating the contents are hazardous.
In the last two years and unlikely sector has found themselves the focus hazardous waste enforcement and regulatory