January 18, 2021

Volume XI, Number 18


January 15, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

EPA Foregoes Requiring Financial Assurances from the Chemical, Power, Petroleum, and Coal Products Industries

On December 2, 2020, EPA published its final decision declining to impose financial assurance requirements under section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for several industries: chemical manufacturing; power generation, transmission, and distribution; petroleum manufacturing; and coal products manufacturing.

An alternative decision by the Agency would have imposed financial assurance requirements on companies in these sectors through, for instance, letters of credit, surety bonds, insurance, and/or trust funds. Such requirements would have been prospective assurance (rather than in response to past spills or discharges) to ensure available funds if their operations were to incur hazardous substance response costs under CERCLA.

Key Takeaways

  • EPA declined to impose new financial assurance obligations on the reviewed energy-related and chemical manufacturing industries. In its final rule, “[EPA] concluded that facilities in these three industries operating under a modern regulatory framework do not present a level of risk that warrants financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA section 108(b)." 85 Fed. Reg. 77384, 77384 (Dec. 2, 2020).

  • No impact on enforcement. This rulemaking does not change other aspects of CERCLA, such as provisions that authorize EPA to pursue relief from potentially responsible parties in response to releases or substantial threats of release of hazardous substances. EPA retains its “authority to take a response or enforcement action under CERCLA with respect to any particular facility or industry.” Id.

  • The rulemaking is final but legal challenges or other efforts to reverse this decision are likely.


Section 108(b) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to require owners and operators of 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 9608(b). EPA may set the amount of financial assurance based on the payment experience of the Superfund.

In a 2010 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA identified three groups of industry sectors for possible Section 108(b) financial responsibility requirements: the electric power generation, transmission, and distribution industry; the petroleum manufacturing and coal products manufacturing industries; and the chemical manufacturing industry. In three separate proposed rules issued on July 29, 2019December 23, 2019, and February 21, 2020, EPA proposed declining financial assurance requirements in these industries. After considering public comments on the proposed rules, EPA has now released a combined final rulemaking consistent with its three proposed rules and declined to impose financial assurance requirements.

EPA’s rulemaking has D.C. Circuit precedent on its side. In 2018, EPA declined to impose Section 108(b) financial responsibility requirements on the hardrock mining sector based on EPA’s interpretation that the “risk” to be evaluated by the agency under Section 108(b) is exclusively the financial risk of a taxpayer funded cleanup, not health or environmental risks. The D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld EPA’s statutory interpretation, further finding that Section 108(b) does not mandate that EPA actually impose any financial assurance requirements, contrary to assertions by plaintiffs. Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

The new rulemaking relies on the same statutory interpretation previously upheld, and thus substantially resolves longstanding uncertainty in multiple industry sectors about the potential for Section 108(b) financial assurance requirements. This issue may continue to be in flux, however, as legal, legislative, and other challenges to the rulemaking are anticipated.

© 2020 Beveridge & Diamond PC National Law Review, Volume X, Number 339



About this Author

Pamela D. Marks Environmental Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Baltimore, MD

Pam helps her clients tackle water, waste, and historic contamination regulatory issues and litigation.

Pam offers her clients the experience and judgment from decades of environmental counseling and litigation. She currently co-leads the firm-wide Environmental Practice Group, and formerly has managed Beveridge & Diamond's Baltimore office and led the firm’s Contaminated Properties practice.

Pam focuses her practice on solid and hazardous waste management, contaminated property remediation, water discharges, chemicals regulation, and project...

Aron H. Schnur Regulatory Compliance Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Baltimore, MD

Aron looks at every legal issue through the lens of his client's business.

He counsels clients on regulatory compliance and represents them in administrative proceedings and enforcement actions related to air, waste, water, and safety issues. He has experience in a broad array of industry sectors ranging from petroleum refineries to data centers and advises one client in the iron and steel industry on its day-to-day environmental issues affecting several facilities throughout the country.

In the course of advising clients on regulatory issues, Aron has saved companies...

Rujeko A. Muza Business & Environmental Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Washington, DC

With a strong business background, Rue enjoys working at the intersection of business, environmental law, and the government.

Prior to joining the firm, Rue worked at a Fortune 50 company in government and regulatory affairs. She helped the company formulate a climate change strategy, build coalitions, and respond to federal environmental regulations. When advising clients, Rue leverages her in-house experience by integrating business priorities into her legal solutions. 

Rue has a colorful background having also litigated at a large mid-western firm. Her clients ranged from...

Rachel K. Roberts Land Use Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Seattle, WA

Rachel Roberts helps clients resolve complex matters involving contaminated sites, land use, and water rights.

Rachel’s practice focuses on contaminated site remediation under CERCLA and state laws, as well as water rights disputes and federal land use issues. Rachel helps clients steer complex and long-running cases to a successful resolution. She also enjoys helping clients navigate challenging regulatory environments.

Prior to joining Beveridge & Diamond, Rachel served as a Trial Attorney for U.S. Department of Justice’s Natural Resources Section of the Environment and...