As you are surely by now aware, the federal and most state governments have recently begun to regulate several new classes of chemicals, including Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (“PFAS”). Regulators have also lowered the concentrations at which certain chemicals historically listed as hazardous materials/substances are considered to pose a risk, such as 1, 4 dioxane and TCE. Last spring, I authored MassDEP’s TCE Closed Site Review: The Legalities which concluded that a landowner of a permanently closed TCE site revisited by the MassDEP should be entitled to the liability exemption under G.L. c. 21E, §5C even though the MCP purports to require further response actions.
What my article did not discuss is whether the liability exemption under Section 5C of G.L. c. 21E would protect such an “eligible” owner from liability for an emerging contaminant that is first discovered and first considered to be a hazardous material like PFAS after the site achieved a permanent solution. Likewise, my article did not address whether such an owner would have to report its knowledge of the presence of such contaminants to the MassDEP. I conclude that because of the narrow language of Section 5C those owners should be prepared to address emerging contaminants under the MCP and c. 21E or risk liability to the MassDEP and they must notify the MassDEP if the concentrations pose or could pose an imminent hazard.
Section 5C of c. 21E states that “an eligible person shall be exempt from liability . . . pursuant to this chapter . . . for any release of oil or hazardous material at the site or portion of a site owned or operated by said eligible person, as delineated in a waste site cleanup activity opinion, for which a permanent solution or remedy operation status exists and is maintained or has been achieved and maintained in accordance with such opinion . . .” For the liability exemption to apply, the “permanent solution or remedy operation status” and the “waste site cleanup activity opinion” must exist and be maintained for “any release of oil or hazardous material at the site.” The statute does not appear to exempt the owner from liability from the entire site but only exempts the owner from liability “for any release of oil or hazardous material” for which a permanent solution or remedy operation status exists and is maintained. Whether the Legislature’s reference to “any release of oil or hazardous material at the site” is broad enough to exempt the owner from liability for releases of hazardous materials that were not actionable at the time the permanent solution or remedy operation status were filed or only those that were actually assessed is unclear. Heavy emphasis on “any” hazardous material would support the application of the exemption. A more narrow reading (which is ordinarily applied by the courts in reviewing public health and safety legislation) would only exempt the owner from liability for releases of oil and those hazardous materials that were actually assessed as part of a waste site cleanup activity opinion in support of the permanent solution or remedy operation status. This differs from the case of a reopened TCE site because a permanent solution or remedy operation status “exists and is maintained” for “the release of oil or hazardous material [i.e. TCE] at the site” in accordance with the waste site cleanup activity opinion. The same legal framework and analysis for the lowered action levels for TCE should apply equally to contaminants such as 1,4 dioxane, that have historically been listed by the MassDEP as hazardous materials but have recently been assigned much lower action levels. Both must be properly addressed as part of the LSP Opinion.
Chapter 21E, § 2 defines “hazardous material”
material including but not limited to, any material, in whatever form, which, because of its quantity, concentration, chemical, corrosive, flammable, reactive, toxic, infectious or radioactive characteristics, either separately or in combination with any substance or substances, constitutes a present or potential threat to human health, safety, welfare, or to the environment, when improperly stored, treated, transported, disposed of, used, or otherwise managed. The term shall not include oil. The term shall also include all those substances which are included under 42 USC Sec. 9601(14), but it is not limited to those substances.
Under this broad definition, PFAS are hazardous material because of their toxicity.
Chapter 21E, § 7 requires notice to the MassDEP of releases of hazardous materials:
Any owner or operator of a site or vessel, and any person otherwise described in paragraph (a) of section 5, . . ., as soon as he has knowledge of a release or threat of release of oil or hazardous material, shall immediately notify the department thereof.
However, under that same section the MassDEP has published in the MCP “regulations establishing thresholds below which notification shall not be required by this section.”
Without diving into the numerous and complex exceptions to notification, generally under 310 CMR 40.0311, notification is only required for a release or threat of release of a hazardous material for which MassDEP has promulgated either a Reportable Quantity or Reportable Concentration or if the hazardous material exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardousness at 310 CMR 40.0347 (ignitability, corrosively, reactivity, toxicity, or infectiousness). Because MassDEP has not promulgated Reportable Quantities or Concentrations for PFAS (and they are not characteristically hazardous), mere detection of PFAS does not require notification. However, two hour notification is required if the PFAS “poses or could pose an imminent hazard.” 310 CMR 40.0311(7). An “imminent hazard” is defined in relevant part as “a release to the environment of oil and/or hazardous material which poses a significant risk to human health when present for even a short period of time, as specified in 310 CMR 40.0950.” 310 CMR 40.0321 (1)(d). 310 CMR 40.0950 requires that a Method 3 risk assessment method shall be performed to determine if an imminent hazard to human health exists. A Method 3 risk assessment includes use of Reference Doses and Reference Concentrations for toxicity and Carcinogenic Slope Factors and Unit Risk Values for cancer risk. According to MassDEP’s Draft Fact Sheet Guidance on Sampling for PFCs, the USEPA has established a Reference Dose of 0.00002 mg/kg/day, documented in the Drinking Water Health Advisory, which would serve as the basis of a MCP Risk Characterization.
In conclusion, eligible persons who own sites where emerging contaminants are discovered are not exempt from liability or notification of the detection of such contaminants. If there are no promulgated RCs or RQs for the contaminant, a Method 3 risk assessment will be required to determine if an imminent hazard exists and notification is required. In that case, 2 hour notice is required. If an imminent hazard exists, the responsible party will need to notify and perform an immediate response action and follow on MCP assessment and possible remediation. Even if no notification is required, the responsible party is required under the MCP to carry out response actions and is not exempt from liability to the MassDEP for failure to take such actions.
When I first started to dive into this dense analysis (apologies to the reader), I experienced cognitive dissonance. I simply could not get my mind around the concept that decades old closed sites could present a whole new set of engineering, legal and financial problems. I felt like Marty McFly in Back to the Future. Although CERCLA has statutory “reopeners,” that concept seems foreign to the Massachusetts site clean up arena under the MCP and c. 21E. Not until I read the EPA’s Health Advisory on PFOA, did the potential public health risks start to sink in and my head clear.
I am not sure that the liability framework under CERCLA and c. 21E is the best means to address emerging contaminants. Aside from creating cognitive dissonance, I wonder if it is fair (as if CERCLA and 21E were ever fair) at this time, to require somewhat remote parties (i.e. people other than manufacturers who released these chemicals to the environment) to be legally responsible for exceedingly low concentrations of ubiquitous chemicals that were in the stream of commerce as products, and had nothing to do with waste disposal decisions. Regardless, for now, LSPs, responsible parties and their non-environmental counsel need to clear the mental fog and take their reporting and response obligations for emerging contaminants seriously – – at least until we invent a better mouse trap. For if this is just the beginning of a much bigger long-term trend, I fear that the existing “polluter pays” approach will not be workable.
By Tom Mackie