Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

New Jersey's Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) was enacted in 1977, establishing broad responsibilities for entities that handle hazardous substances, including reporting and cleanup by those responsible for contamination. (The Spill Act predated and helped inspire the national Superfund law (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980). The Act also provides limitations on liability in some circumstances, notably for entities that acquire land that is already contaminated. The Spill Act is administered by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). On October 21, DEP proposed to expand Spill Act reporting responsibilities to all entities that discover contamination, including those conducting site evaluations as part of their due diligence – “All Appropriate Inquiries” – in support of possible property transfers. 

Read More

The 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) added procedures for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate risks presented by existing chemicals using the latest scientific information – including information developed after a chemical entered use in the US. Based on these reviews, EPA is to update its regulatory requirements, ranging from labeling-only through use restrictions up to and including bans from further distribution and use. (I summarized these review requirements HERE ).  Beginning in November 2019, EPA regularly announces new chemical reviews, and subsequently the results of these reviews. (I wrote about the first review announcement HERE ). On July 25, 2024 EPA published a formal proposal to review 5 additional chemicals for designation as High-Priority Substance subject to strict controls under TSCA. The rest of this note identifies these proposed chemicals.

Read More

The federal Superfund law (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980) defines broad categories of parties who might be deemed responsible for chemical contamination (“responsible parties”) and liable to pay for some or all the costs o cleaning up. Nearly 45 years after CERCLA was first enacted, a federal Court of Appeals has confirmed for the first time that a party that “arranges for” disposal can be liable for cleanup costs

, even if there’s no evidence that the party knew that the materials being disposed were hazardous. Although this ruling is consistent with the statutory text and decades of practice, it’s still the first formal ruling by an Appeals court (68^th Street Site Work Group v. Alban Tractor Co.). The rest of this note summarizes “arranger-for” liability, and this case.

Read More