Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
By Steven M. Siros, Partner, Jenner & Block
In 1992, a consent decree was entered into between U.S. EPA and two PRPs to address contamination at an NPL site in Mountain View, California. In June 2001, U.S. EPA certified completion of remediation activities per the 1992 consent agreement. Almost ten years later, in August 2010, U.S. EPA reopened the ROD, finding that the original remedy was not protective of human health and the environment because it did not address the vapor intrusion pathway. A ROD amendment was issued and on December 21, 2011, a stipulation to amend the 1992 consent decree was entered which requires the PRPs to undertake additional remedial measures to address the vapor intrusion pathway at the site.
This is likely to become an increasingly frequent scenario as regulatory agencies re-evaluate whether remedial actions that were completed years ago continue to be sufficiently protective of human health and the environment. In many situations, it is likely that these sites will be reopened and PRPs will be forced to take additional remedial action to address vapor intrusion issues. To see a copy of the Joint Stipulation to Amend the Consent Decree, please click here.
Read more at Corporate Environmental Lawyer Blog by Jenner & Block LLP.
The Corporate Environmental Lawyer Blog is a 2011 LexisNexis Top 50 Blogs for Environmental Law & Climate Change winner.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.