As we previously reported, the current administration set out to make Superfund reform a priority. Shortly after taking over as EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt convened a task force to provide recommendations for restructuring and streamlining the Superfund cleanup process. Over the summer, Administrator Pruitt endorsed 42 recommendations from the task force. The recommendations included, among others:

  • Developing a target list of sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) that are moving too slowly towards completion, including a Top 10 Administrator’s Emphasis List for sites that need “immediate and intense action.”
  • Encouraging the use of early or interim removal and remedial actions at complex sites.
  • Providing reduced oversight incentives, such as reduced oversight costs, to cooperative, high-performing potentially responsible parties (PRPs).
  • Discouraging PRPs from delaying the process through negotiation by actively using unilateral administrative orders.
  • Reducing financial assurance requirements for cooperating PRPs.
  • Identifying opportunities for third party oversight of PRP-led cleanups.
  • Encouraging integration of reuse outcomes into remedial planning.
  • Exploring liability transfer and risk management approaches at PRP-led cleanups.

Recently, however, EPA officials acknowledged that there are a number of hurdles to implementing the recommendations. Budget cuts and declining EPA staff could impact both EPA’s ability to swiftly take steps necessary to carry out the recommendations, as well as to conduct the necessary follow-up to ensure effective implementation. EPA officials have also acknowledged that some of the recommendations, such as third party oversight of cleanups, are subject to further review and refinement.

Despite these challenges, Superfund remains a priority at EPA, and it is getting more attention than it has in years past. EPA is already looking at ways to expedite cleanups and minimize protracted negotiations at PRP-led sites. In addition, because a number of the recommendations provide some level of flexibility, we might begin seeing PRPs attempting to use the recommendations to negotiate for novel or flexible approaches at individual sites, even in advance of sweeping implementation by EPA.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Megan Baroni Megan Baroni

I am an environmental attorney in Robinson+Cole’s Environmental and Utilities Group. I have worked with manufacturers, both big and small, on environmental compliance, risk management, and litigation matters for my entire career. My full firm bio can be accessed here.

As an…

I am an environmental attorney in Robinson+Cole’s Environmental and Utilities Group. I have worked with manufacturers, both big and small, on environmental compliance, risk management, and litigation matters for my entire career. My full firm bio can be accessed here.

As an environmental lawyer, I never want to be a roadblock to our client’s goals. I strive to understand the business of our manufacturing clients – what do you make and how do you make it? I want to know your objective, and I want to help you get there. Regulatory requirements and potential legal liabilities can sometimes seem daunting, but I help our clients develop an understanding of the requirements and all of the potential options so that we can create practical and cost-effective solutions to accomplish the objective. I work with management as well as the people who make our clients’ products every day, and I enjoy every part of it. It’s a good day for me when I can put on my hard hat and walk the factory floor.