Environmental Law 2025 Comparisons

Federal environmental law’s major statutes operate primarily as media‑specific programmes (air, water, land), layered atop cross‑cutting federal frameworks governing chemicals, permitting and federal decision-making. These statutes collectively create the national structure for standard-setting, reporting, risk management, cleanup and environmental protection. Taken together, they function as an interdependent compliance architecture that organisations use to plan capital projects, operations and disclosures.

The following is a brief list of the major federal environmental statutes:

• the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (environmental review of federal actions);
• the Clean Water Act (CWA) (regulation of pollutant discharges to US waters);
• the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (protection of public drinking water supplies);
• the Clean Air Act (CAA) (control of air pollution from stationary and mobile sources);
• the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (regulation of industrial chemicals and substances);
• the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as Superfund) (cleanup of hazardous waste sites and cost recovery);
• the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (management of solid and hazardous waste from cradle to grave);
• the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (protection of threatened and endangered species and habitats); and
• the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (registration and regulation of pesticides).

Other cross-disciplinary acts intersect with environmental governance where workplace exposure, food and drug manufacturing, energy systems and nuclear materials create environmental or health risks.

• the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) (workplace exposure to environmental and chemical hazards);
• the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (regulation of environmental contaminants in food and consumer products);
• the Energy Policy Act (environmental regulation and promotion of energy production and efficiency);
• the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) (regulation of nuclear materials and radiological safety); and
• the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) (disposal and long-term management of radioactive waste).

At the federal level, the main regulatory authority for administering, enforcing and implementing environmental policy is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). State-level environmental agencies implement most federal programmes under delegation agreements, working closely with the EPA, though state-specific engagement varies. Tribal governments also exercise significant authority pursuant to federal recognition and delegated programmes. Understanding which authority (EPA, state or tribal) controls a particular permit or enforcement action is a threshold step for any project or investigation.

While the EPA has most of the regulatory authority, there are other governmental bodies that contribute to policy and legal enforcement:

• Department of Justice (DOJ) Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) – civil and criminal enforcement, regulatory defence, and general defence of the government under the federal environmental statutes;
• US Attorneys’ Offices – additional civil and criminal representation; and
• US Army Corps of Engineers (co‑administrator of CWA Section 404 dredge‑and‑fill permitting and related resource‑protection responsibilities).

Focused governmental agencies – such as the Department of the Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) – also contribute to policy execution and programme oversight. All federal agencies must comply with the NEPA when taking major federal actions requiring environmental review.

Co-operation typically arises when a regulated party undergoes a permitting, reporting or inspection process. The EPA also applies its non-binding Audit Policy to encourage voluntary self-disclosure and correction violations of federal environmental laws. In return, regulated entities receive penalty mitigation. Regulated parties are encouraged to have auditing or compliance systems in place.

Regulated parties engage substantively in federal rulemaking through notice-and-comment procedures, and the EPA engages substantively in federal rulemaking through notice-and-comment procedures and technical assistance.

Finally, the EPA implements an internal framework, called the Meaningful Engagement Policy, which commits the Agency to delivering timely, accessible and accurate information to the public, and to integrating early stakeholder participation in decision-making processes.

The set of federal laws mentioned in 1.1 Environmental Protection Policies, Principles and Laws protect environmental media and ecological resources through standards, permitting programmes, cleanup frameworks and federal environmental review.

First, the EPA is responsible for setting standards across asset categories:

• Drinking-water standards for chemical, microbial and radiological contaminants;
• National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants;
• mobile source emissions; and
• effluent limitations guidelines (ELG) for wastewater discharges.

Second, as discussed in 2.1 Regulatory Authorities, the NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental impact of their actions, requiring an environmental review and the public issuance of an environmental assessment (EA) for discrete projects and an environmental impact statement (EIS) for larger, cumulative projects.

Third, the EPA collaborates with other departments and agencies to protect environmental assets by requiring permits or approval before an asset is disturbed. For example, wetlands are protected through a dredge-and-fill permitting process under the CWA that is jointly administered with the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Fourth, the EPA aims to prevent potential releases to soil and groundwater through frameworks such as RCRA, and remediates legacy contamination and major releases through the CERCLA (Superfund) process. Chemical risk management for chemicals that may create exposures to human health or the environment occurs under the TSCA listing process legacy contamination and major releases.

Finally, the EPA’s scientific and policy team research emerging risks, working in collaboration with private and public institutions to strengthen the knowledge base.

There can be two breaching parties: the regulators, or regulated entities.

Regulators’ actions are reviewable under administrative appeals procedures that occur between the EPA and the regulated party under the specific programme. After that process is exhausted, a party with proper legal grounds may seek judicial review in federal court under a variety of theories contained in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Failure of regulated parties to act in accordance with the statutes that apply to them can result in injunctions, administrative orders, civil penalties, criminal penalties, individual prison time for environmental crimes, and reputational and operational impacts. Early engagement, credible corrective actions and structured self‑disclosure can materially reduce penalty exposure and oversight intensity. As environmental and climate issues become more embedded in financial disclosures and governance expectations, oversight from non-environmental regulators, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), may also increase, subject to shifts in federal policy. 

The EPA and delegated regulators possess broad investigative authority. If the EPA suspects a violation, it has various mechanisms to investigate and access information.

Within its authority, the EPA may:

• request information from regulated parties/suspected responsible parties;
• subpoena relevant parties;
• compel production of data, documents, samples and sworn responses, and enter premises to observe equipment, review records or conduct monitoring – entry may occur without advance notice consistent with statutory authority and constitutional constraints;
• prevent the destruction of potential relevant records or evidence;
• take samples; and
• issue administrative orders requiring compliance.

Non‑responsiveness can escalate matters – the EPA may take unilateral actions such as issuing warning letters, issuing administrative compliance orders, issuing emergency orders for “imminent and substantial endangerment” or bringing an administrative/legal suit against the regulated party.

Many of the major federal environmental laws include a permitting programme. Permits are required under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act.

If a regulated party’s activities may result in emissions, discharges of pollutants or other waste, or may impact the environment in another impermissible way, a permit may be required. A brief overview of the types of permits the EPA is responsible for issuing is as follows.

• The Clean Air Act:
1. New Source Review Program – air emissions for new facilities;
2. Title V – air emissions for industrial facilities; and
3. Outer Continental Shelf Program – air emissions for off-shore energy production.
• The Clean Water Act:
1. Section 401 – monitors water quality.
2. Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) – discharge of water pollutants; and
3. Section 404 – dredge-and-fill protections for waters and wetlands.
• RCRA:
1. Hazardous Waste Program – cradle-to-grave permitting related to designated hazardous substances.
• TSCA:
1. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Clean-Up and Disposal Program – site contamination permitting.
• SDWA:
1. Underground Injection Control Program – protects drinking water related to subsurface wells.
• MPRSA:
1. Marine Protection Program – permitting for activities concerning deposition and transportation of materials in the ocean.

Environmental permits are issued directly by the EPA, or more commonly by state agencies, territories, tribal nations and local implementing agencies. If a regulated party would like to appeal a permitting decision, they are typically heard by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) or state equivalents, followed by judicial review in federal court under the APA, as discussed in 3.2 Breaching Protections. Because thresholds, timelines and public‑participation rules vary by programme and state, front‑end jurisdictional scoping is essential to schedule and cost control.

The EPA’s mission is the protection of human health and the environment. This goal is achieved through a variety of policies and priorities that evolve across Presidential administrations and EPA leadership. There are three main ways in which the EPA approaches an environmental policy or issue: via specific law, around a particular topic area, or by sector.

Other policy methods and approaches include:

• administrative rulemaking and guidance;
• scientific reviews;
• risk assessment and management;
• collaboration between federal, state, local and tribal entities (co-operative federalism or intergovernmental co-operation);
• cost-benefit analysis (CBA), through guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); and
• use of Federal Advisory Committees (FACs) relevant to the EPA’s scope and issues.

Enforcement is guided by multi-year National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives (NECIs) and supported by the EPA Audit Policy, discussed in 2.2 Co-Operation. NECIs signal where inspections, information requests and referrals are most likely to concentrate.

Under certain statutory schemes, permit transfers are allowed, subject to certain requirements. Permit transfers take place between a current holder of a permit and a prospective holder (such as a new owner or operator of a facility). Generally, parties must:

• notify the issuing agency;
• submit transfer requests;
• provide joint applications and written agreements;
• submit revised applications;
• demonstrate compliance capability; and
• modify permits to reflect the new permit holder, as well as other pertinent information such as compliance history, financial data, etc.

The specific process varies across the major federal permitting programmes. Failure to follow the transfer requirements can expose parties to liability, including liability for operating without a permit.

The legal consequences of breaching a permit include potential administrative orders, civil penalties, injunctive relief in the form of corrective measures, and, in certain cases, criminal liability (penalties or jail for individual actors).

Practical consequences of breaching a federal environmental approval or permit include:

• reputational damage;
• erosion of a party’s relationship with federal regulators;
• revocation or suspension of permits or approvals;
• monetary impact on a business;
• loss of ability to operate a business;
• increases in insurance costs;
• more frequent inspections or oversight from regulators or other entities; and
• heightened risk of citizen suits.

Demonstrable corrective action, robust compliance controls, and timely self‑disclosure are often key to limiting penalties and oversight.

Environmental liability manifests in different ways, depending on a party’s position. Administrative liability arises from agency actions that may result in administrative orders or penalties, as discussed in 4.5 Consequences of Breaching Permits/Approvals. Courts can also impose civil liability in the form of injunctive relief or money damages (typically for tort law claims). Finally, criminal liability is applicable where the behaviour meets the requirements under a statute with provisions imposing criminal penalties.

A party can be held strictly liable (no finding of fault necessary), jointly and severally liable (each actor is potentially liable for the full amount of damages) or face some sort of contributory liability (an obligation to contribute to another party’s payment).

Under CERCLA, strict and joint and several liability can be imposed for historical environmental incidents or damage on a current owner or operators. In some cases, a defence under the statute may apply (such as the bona fide prospective purchaser defence); typically, an allocation and/or apportionment of costs follows the finding of liability without fault – at which time a party can make equitable arguments.

Available defences to liability depend on the type of offence and the statutory or common law basis for a claim.

As noted previously, liability under CERCLA is strict (irrespective of fault) and joint and several (any liable party can be liable for all damages). However, a party can raise defences that (for example):

• the contaminant at issue is not listed as a hazardous substance under CERCLA (petroleum, for instance, is excluded);
• it was not the owner or operator currently or at the time of the release;
• the release was due solely to an act of war or act of God;
• the release was under a federal permit; or
• the party falls under the secured creditor exemption.

Tort liability arising from an environmental harm mirrors those available under other tort claims. In the United States, tort law is based on the common law, and varies from state to state. Common defences available under a tort claim include contributory negligence or comparative negligence (depending on the state), assumption of risk, or that no duty existed in the first place.

A party facing an administrative enforcement action may raise some of the following defences and limitations to enforcement:

• the agency lacks statutory authority to seek enforcement;
• the agency is exceeding its statutory limits;
• the procedural due process or notice was deficient; or
• the applicable statute of limitations has run.

The general rule is that a corporate entity may be liable for environmental damages or breaches committed by agents or employees of the company acting within the scope of their work. This concept of vicarious liability is a cornerstone of American tort law. Under the law of agency and corporations, there may also be liability that attaches to a parent company.

Taxes are levied on certain classes of products and products with certain characteristics.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2022) reinstated the superfund excise taxes. These taxes target certain chemicals and substances and the manufacturers, producers or importers that use them.

Additionally, the federal government taxes petroleum and oil products. A portion of these taxes goes to specific environmental funds.

Finally, the federal government also taxes the sale or use of ozone-depleting chemicals (ODCs), and taxes imported products manufactured with ODCs.

Businesses can receive tax credits for investments in clean energy equipment, equipment that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, systems that reduce energy and power costs, and the like.

Shareholders can generally only be held liable under piercing the corporate veil. Otherwise, it is unlikely that shareholders will bear legal liability for environmental damage or breaches of environmental law.

Parent companies can be held liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability, if they exercised enough control over the subsidiary such that it was effectively controlling the actions of the individual agents of the subsidiary.

The United States does not have a unified federal ESG mandate that compels companies to adopt or report on ESG practices. Instead, ESG-related obligations arise from a patchwork of federal securities rules, state legislation and voluntary market frameworks. At the federal level, the SEC adopted a climate disclosure rule in March 2024 requiring public companies to report certain climate-related risks and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; however, the rule was immediately challenged in court and stayed, and after the change in administration the SEC paused its defence of the rule in March 2025. Public companies remain subject to existing SEC materiality-based disclosure obligations, meaning that, if climate or environmental issues pose a material financial or operational risk, companies may need to address them in annual filings.

At the state level, California has enacted climate-related disclosure laws that require large companies above certain revenue thresholds to disclose GHG emissions and climate-related financial risks, and these laws can apply to both public and private companies that do business in the state. The SEC also oversees ESG-related claims by public companies and asset managers through its Climate and ESG Task Force, and the 2023 amendments to the Names Rule require funds whose names suggest an ESG or environmentally focused strategy to invest at least 80% of assets in alignment with that strategy.

Beyond mandatory requirements, many large companies voluntarily publish sustainability or ESG reports, often guided by frameworks such as the ICMA Green Bond Principles and the LMA/LSTA Green Loan Principles. The current political and regulatory environment reflects significant uncertainty, with federal policy trends including the scaling-back or reconsideration of climate-focused rules issued between 2021 and 2024, and the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement following the 2024 election. For further discussion of corporate disclosure requirements and green finance obligations, see 16.3 Corporate Disclosure Requirement and 16.4 Green Finance.

The EPA does not conduct regular, involuntary audits of regulated entities. The EPA may participate in audit-like investigations if reviewing reported or suspected non-compliance. The agency does encourage regulated entities to conduct self-assessment programmes and voluntary audits to meet the EPA’s “credible deterrence goal”. The colloquially named “Audit Policy” is non-binding guidance that encourages regulated entities to exceed compliance expectations and proactively report potential issues under environmental laws as soon as they arise.

Directors and other officers of companies may be personally liable for environmental damage or breaches of law under corporate law theories. A court could find liability under a corporate veil piercing theory or an active participation and authority theory. If criminal liability is being sought for breaches of environmental law committed by a company, those charges can be applied to the company under a theory of vicarious liability or can be brought against individual actors. Civil and criminal penalties for a company or corporation tend to take the form of monetary fines or orders to curtail operations. Individuals can also face potential imprisonment if prosecuted and convicted of environmental crimes.

Directors’ and officers’ (D&O) liability is available to protect these individuals’ assets and from personal losses in the event they are sued. It will also generally reimburse the cost of defence incurred by the relevant employees from claims made against them. D&O insurance is acquired and held by the company, as often articles of incorporation include an indemnity provision.

Environmental insurance is available throughout the United States, but obtaining such coverage is not compulsory other than as may be arranged contractually between parties. The risks covered vary tremendously from policy to policy, as do premiums, deductibles and exclusions. Parties generally seek coverage for unexpected or catastrophic environmental liability. Every insurance carrier will carve out known/pre-existing conditions from a pollution legal liability (PLL) policy.

While many PLL policies cover emerging contaminants, it can be more challenging to find coverage for certain risks where the potential liability is not yet fully understood, such as PFAS contamination. PLL policies are written on a case-by-case basis, and various insurers bring diverse risk tolerances to each site.

Congress codified “lender liability” protection under CERCLA in 1996. Under that provision, a lender is exempt from liability so long as it acts only to protect its security interest and not as a typical owner or operator managing a contaminated site.   

A lender can protect itself from liability under CERCLA by not participating in management. Operational activity that constitutes “participating in management” includes actually running the enterprise or facility, making or controlling decisions about the facility’s environmental compliance or hazardous substance handling, or assuming responsibility for overall operational functions. Examples include directing specific waste-handling practices, approving or vetoing day‑to‑day operational decisions, controlling personnel with operational roles, or integrating the borrower into the lender’s own operations.

In the event of a foreclosure, a lender may avail itself of safe harbour provisions by limiting its activities to those necessary to “divest itself of the property at the earliest practicable, commercially reasonable time using commercially reasonable means”. The lender must stop short of going beyond preservation and liquidation necessary to protect its security interest

Most major environmental statutes authorise private parties to bring civil claims as “citizen suits”. Different statutes may provide compensatory or injunctive relief, or both, with penalty amounts determined according to the framework’s purpose and objectives.

Federal courts may award punitive damages in narrow situations to deter repeat offending, not to compensate plaintiffs.

To obtain punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant acted with malice, reckless disregard or similarly extreme misconduct. Punitive damages are limited in amount by the Constitution’s due process clause.

Environmental civil claims may be brought on behalf of a class or group. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow multiple similar claims against the same defendants to be combined. Federal actions can also be co-ordinated in multidistrict litigation (MDL) for pretrial purposes. To be certified as a class action or otherwise consolidate cases, plaintiffs must allege similar injuries – such as harm to health or property from a mutual environmental source – and meet other statutory requirements.

Landmark cases in federal court include the following.

Sierra Club v Morton (1971)

The first case before the Supreme Court that found constitutional standing for environmental groups to sue based on concrete and particularised injury to group members.

Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife (1992)

Narrowing the decision in Sierra Club, the Court found that injuries to group members must be “actual or imminent” to confer standing.

Massachusetts v EPA (2007)

Holding that states had standing to sue the EPA for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This was based on a “special solicitude” of states with concrete environmental injuries – such as rising sea levels – linked to the EPA’s inaction.

West Virginia v EPA (2022)

Ruling that a “major questions doctrine” requires agencies such as the EPA to identify clear congressional authorisation when claiming the authority to make decisions of vast economic and political significance.

Sackett v EPA (2023)

Limiting the regulation of wetlands as “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act to relatively permanent bodies of water with continuous connection to “streams, oceans, rivers and lakes”, or those connected to the traditional conception of interstate navigable waters, such that the wetlands are indistinguishable from such waters.

Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo (2024)

Requiring courts to independently interpret a statute’s grant of regulatory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, thus overruling the prior landmark precedent, Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council, under which courts deferred to an agency’s reasonable interpretation, even if the court disagreed with the interpretation.

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v Eagle County (2025)

The NEPA is a procedural act that does not impart substantive standards on agencies when reviewing the environmental effects of its proposed actions, meaning that courts must give substantial deference to an agency’s choices in determining the scope of such reviews.

Although private parties may use indemnity provisions or other contractual arrangements  (such as escrows or holdbacks, insurance, asset carve-outs, etc) to transfer, apportion or otherwise assign liability between the parties in the event of a breach, federal and state governments derive their enforcement authority directly from statutes (such as CERCLA), and thus can pursue any potentially responsible party notwithstanding arrangements made between private parties. In short, a private party with statutory liability will remain liable, notwithstanding a private risk transfer where another private party takes on all or part of that liability.

CERCLA is the key federal laws governing contaminated land. In addition, the RCRA governs mitigation of releases of hazardous waste at covered facilities.

Generally speaking, the federal government will defer if a state is directing remediation. At either level, the enforcement authority will require a site investigation, feasibility study, remedial design, a record of decision from the agency that allows public involvement, and then (ultimately) undertaking remediation to an agreed-upon level. A responsible party may simply contribute money or could be involved in actually implementing the remedy.

Almost every jurisdiction also has some variation of a voluntary cleanup programme, which typically allows a party to come forward and propose a plan that will achieve a risk-based cleanup resulting in the enforcement authority’s issuance of a “no further action” (or equivalent) letter. 

The RCRA’s main programme covering contaminated land is the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Program (formerly known as the Corrective Action Program). The approach to hazardous waste cleanup is more fluid compared to legacy contamination cleanup. The EPA and authorised state agencies take a case-by-case approach to RCRA enforcement, primarily using enforcement orders and permitting programmes.

While the EPA is authorised to undertake remediation of contaminated land, under CERCLA it can impose that responsibility on potentially responsible parties (PRPs). Either PRPs perform the cleanup or the EPA can do it and then seek cost recovery from the PRPs. If the contaminated land is a federal facility, the USA becomes the PRP – just like any private party (waiving sovereign immunity). Many states have analogous provisions under state laws and programmes.

Under the RCRA, owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) must investigate and remediate releases; and the EPA or an authorised state will direct that they do so via enforcement orders or permitting programmes. For underground storage tanks, owners and operators are directly responsible for reporting and cleaning up releases.

As noted here, the EPA can delegate the responsibility to a PRP, but it will retain oversight and cost recovery rights. There are also voluntary cleanup programmes available through most states and the USA. However, the remediation responsibility is delegated, though the enforcing authority maintains oversight.

The public laws are CERCLA and the RCRA, as well as various state analogues.

In situations where there are multiple PRPs, the EPA can pursue one or more under CERLA. Despite the fact that statutory liability is joint and several, a factual, historical, scientific analysis typically provides the basis for apportionment and allocation of liability. If the EPA or a PRP fronts the cleanup costs, that entity can seek contribution from other PRPs.

General standing requirements in a US federal court require the injured party to show injury-in-fact, causation and redressability – that is, the plaintiff must show:

• they were actually and concretely injured by the alleged legal violation;
• their injury is causally connected to the polluter’s, landowner’s or occupier’s contamination; and
• the court can remedy the injury under the law.

Environmental accident investigations proceed under the EPA’s statutory authorities to obtain information, inspect facilities and compel corrective measures. Releases often trigger mandatory notifications under CERCLA Section 103, the Clean Water Act Section 311, RCRA hazardous waste and UST rules, or TSCA substantial‑risk reporting, any of which can initiate an investigation. The EPA may also act on its own through monitoring data, field inspections or third‑party reports.

Once an incident is flagged, the EPA relies on the information‑collection and access provisions of CERCLA Sections 104(e)/122, CAA Section 114, CWA Section 308, RCRA Sections 3007/9005, and TSCA Section 11 to request records, interview personnel, enter facilities (often unannounced) and collect environmental samples. These authorities allow the EPA to secure the site, preserve evidence, and characterise the nature and extent of the release.

The EPA then conducts a technical assessment, co-ordinating with state or tribal partners where delegated programmes apply. Depending on the findings, the EPA may issue informal requests, administrative compliance orders, or, where an imminent and substantial endangerment exists, emergency orders (eg, CERCLA Section 106). More severe cases may be referred to the Department of Justice for civil or criminal enforcement. Throughout the process, the EPA expects prompt co-operation, accurate disclosures and immediate mitigation measures, all of which influence the Agency’s enforcement posture and penalty considerations.

The United States does not have a single comprehensive climate change statute. From a policy perspective, the United States rejoined the Paris Agreement under the Biden administration after having exited during the first Trump administration. Following the 2024 election, the United States has again withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. As a result, there is currently no overarching federal climate strategy or nationwide decarbonisation target guiding federal agencies. Current federal policy trends include scaling back or reconsidering climate-focused rules issued between 2021 and 2024.

There is no federal law that mandates private companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions or meet specific emissions reduction targets.

At the federal level, the CAA remains the primary statute under which the EPA regulates greenhouse gases through endangerment findings. In July 2025, the EPA proposed to rescind the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. The CAA only authorises the EPA to regulate a pollutant if the EPA has determined that the pollutant endangers public health or welfare. Without that determination through endangerment findings, greenhouse gases would no longer qualify as pollutants that the EPA is required or even permitted to regulate under key CAA provisions.

Asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are both regulated through long-standing federal statutes aimed at protecting public health.

Asbestos

Asbestos is regulated through a series of federal laws designed to prevent exposure and protect public health. The main laws include:

• the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which now bans the last remaining type of commercial asbestos (chrysotile);
• the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, which requires all K-12 schools to inspect for asbestos and manage it safely;
• the Asbestos Information Act, which identifies manufacturers of asbestos-containing products;
• the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act, which supports school inspection and abatement programmes;
• the Clean Air Act, which sets national air-emission standards for asbestos during demolition and renovation work;
• the Safe Drinking Water Act, which sets limits for asbestos in drinking water; and
• the Superfund law (CERCLA), which governs cleanup of asbestos contamination at hazardous sites.

The EPA’s regulations implement these laws by setting strict rules for how asbestos must be handled in buildings, schools and industrial settings. These include requirements for reporting and recordkeeping, advance notice before demolition or renovation, safe work practices, restrictions on previously discontinued asbestos uses, and accredited training for professionals who inspect or remove asbestos.

The EPA has also finalised a rule banning the manufacture, importation, processing, use and commercial disposal of chrysotile asbestos. Additional regulations from OSHA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration set workplace exposure limits, restrict certain consumer products, and protect miners from asbestos hazards.

PCBs

PCBs are also heavily regulated because they are toxic, long-lasting chemicals that were widely used in electrical equipment, building materials and industrial products. In 1979, the manufacturing of PCBs was prohibited, but PCBs may be present in products and materials produced before the 1979 PCB ban.

PCBs are regulated primarily under the TSCA. The law treats PCBs based on how concentrated they are, with key requirements triggered at commonly used thresholds. Owners of PCB equipment and materials must identify and label them clearly, maintain records, and follow specific limits on where and how they can be used. When equipment reaches end of life, it must be removed from service according to the rules. PCBs are also regulated under environmental cleanup laws and workplace-safety rules because they persist in the environment and can accumulate in fish and wildlife.

Overall, both asbestos and PCBs are tightly regulated legacy pollutants, with federal policy focused on safe management, cleanup of contaminated sites, and long-term phase-out of any remaining uses.

At the federal level, waste is chiefly governed by the RCRA. The RCRA is complemented by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, which added stringent land disposal restrictions, facility-wide corrective action authority, tighter controls on land-based units, and minimum technology requirements.

CERCLA’s Strict Joint and Several Liability

A producer or consignor in the USA has “cradle-to-grave” liability for hazardous waste under the RCRA, and can remain strictly liable for cleanup under CERCLA even after engaging a third party to manage the waste, including in circumstances where the third party mismanages or improperly disposes of the waste. Because this is strict liability, it requires no culpable state of mind. Arrangers and transporters may also be responsible when hazardous substances are released from a disposal or treatment site. Liability is joint and several, meaning any one responsible party can be pursued for the full cleanup unless the party can fairly apportion the harm.

The USA has no general federal “ecodesign” mandate requiring producers to design products for disassembly or to operate end-of-life collection systems across all product categories.

US extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws are enacted at the state level, and they apply only to specific product categories. These state programmes generally require producers to finance or operate end-of-life collection, recycling and disposal systems, often through stewardship organisations, and to comply with registration, fee payment, labelling, reporting, and performance or recycling-rate requirements.

Recent legislative trends – led by states such as Maine, Oregon, California and Colorado – focus on packaging EPR to reduce waste generation and shift recycling costs from municipalities and taxpayers to producers. Overall, the US EPR landscape is fragmented, sector-specific and rapidly evolving, with obligations varying significantly by state and product.

Waste operators in the United States are primarily regulated under the RCRA. The RCRA establishes the national framework for identifying, managing, treating and disposing of hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste.

The RCRA requires:

• proper waste characterisation;
• use of the cradle-to-grave manifest system;
• compliance with permit conditions;
• operation and maintenance of protective infrastructure;
• employee training;
• recordkeeping; and
• emergency preparedness.

Treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) must maintain and comply with RCRA permits and meet detailed design and operating standards. They must also provide financial assurance to cover closure of the facility and post-closure care. Waste transporters must comply with RCRA and Department of Transportation requirements relating to waste identification, packaging and release reporting. Under CERCLA, operators must report releases above reportable quantity thresholds and may be required to perform or fund site investigation and remediation if they arranged for disposal, transported waste, or owned or operated a contaminated facility.

Under these federal regimes, waste operators are entitled to due process and fair implementation. The RCRA allows operators to seek, challenge and appeal permitting decisions, including the ability to contest permit conditions through administrative hearings and judicial review. Operators may also claim protection for confidential business information submitted to regulators. Under CERCLA, operators have the right to participate in remedy selection, negotiate consent decrees, and seek contribution or cost allocation from other PRPs.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

Breaching RCRA obligations can result in:

• administrative compliance orders and civil penalties assessed per day of violation – orders can suspend or revoke permits and can mandate the breaching party to undertake corrective measures;
• judicial enforcement and imposition of injunctions and civil penalties, with each day of non-compliance treated as a separate violation;
• criminal liability for knowing violations, including fines and potential imprisonment – penalties escalate where conduct presents imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment;
• parallel state enforcement in authorised programmes, with additional requirements and penalties under state law; and
• private litigation exposure through citizen suits seeking injunctive relief and recovery of attorneys’ fees, particularly in endangerment cases.

The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) requires reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) data and other relevant information from large GHG emission sources, fuel and industrial gas suppliers, and CO2 injection sites in the United States. In September 2025 the EPA issued a proposed rule to end the GHGRP.

Moreover, several statutes require immediate or prompt notification:

• under the “Superfund” law (CERCLA), releases of listed hazardous substances at or above reportable quantities must be reported to the National Response Center, with follow-up as needed;
• the CWA requires immediate notification of oil and hazardous substance discharges that cause a sheen or meet listed thresholds;
• underground storage tank rules require rapid reporting of confirmed or suspected leaks of petroleum and hazardous substances, plus staged follow-up submissions;
• under the TSCA, manufacturers and processors must promptly inform the EPA when information “reasonably supports” a substantial risk to health or the environment; and
• under the RCRA, hazardous waste generators and treatment, storage and disposal facilities must submit biennial hazardous waste reports, maintain manifest tracking records, and immediately report certain spills, releases or operating violations to regulators.

Failure to submit required reports, or submitting false or misleading information, can lead to administrative orders, daily civil penalties, and criminal charges (in some cases) depending on the regulations. Regulators can also suspend or revoke permits, require corrective action, and refer matters to the Department of Justice. Certain omissions can be severe; for example, failing to report qualifying releases can be separate violations for each day.

The public can access environmental information in the United States through several well-established channels. The most important is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Under the FOIA any person can request environmental records from a federal agency. Agencies must disclose requested records unless a statutory exemption applies. Requests must reasonably describe the records and are typically answered within set timelines. For FOIA purposes, a “public authority” is a federal “agency”. That term broadly includes the following:

• executive departments and military departments;
• government corporations and government‑controlled corporations;
• any other establishment in the executive branch (including components of the Executive Office of the President that are not solely advisory);
• independent regulatory agencies; and
• FOIA does not cover Congress or the federal courts.

The EPA implements these requirements with detailed procedures and electronic access to frequently requested records.

At the federal level, there is no law that directly requires all companies to disclose environmental information in their annual reports. Public companies, however, are subject to SEC reporting rules. The SEC adopted a climate disclosure rule in March 2024, but it was immediately challenged in court. The cases were consolidated, and the SEC stayed the rule while litigation proceeds. After the change in administration, the SEC paused its defence of the rule in March 2025, and implementation remains on hold.

Public companies must still disclose any material risks in their annual filings – thus, if climate or environmental issues pose a material financial or operational risk, companies may need to discuss them. In practice, most large companies publish separate sustainability or ESG reports that include environmental information, even if not legally required in the annual report.

States have begun adopting their own requirements. For example, California enacted climate-related disclosure laws that require large companies above certain revenue thresholds to disclose GHG emissions and climate-related financial risks. These state laws can apply to both public and private companies that do business in the state.

In the United States, there is no federal law that governs green finance arrangements.

For green bonds and sustainability-linked bonds, the SEC is the primary federal enforcer when the securities are publicly offered. The SEC applies general antifraud rules, including Rule 10b-5, to ensure that environmental claims, use-of-proceeds descriptions, and performance targets are not misleading. Misstatements can trigger SEC enforcement or private securities litigation.

In 2023, the SEC’s amended the “Names Rule” (Advisers Act Rule 35d-1), which also plays an important role for ESG-branded investment funds. Under the 2023 amendments, funds whose names suggest an ESG, sustainable or environmentally focused strategy must invest at least 80% of assets in alignment with that strategy and must maintain policies to ensure ongoing compliance. In January 2025, the SEC’s Division of Investment Management issued an updated FAQ to help funds prepare for the amended rule’s compliance deadline of 11 December 2025. The SEC enforces the Names Rule and can bring actions for misleading fund names or inadequately substantiated ESG claims.

The SEC oversees how public companies and asset managers describe climate and ESG matters and has a dedicated Climate and ESG Task Force bringing enforcement actions for misleading or incomplete claims. The SEC has also proposed prescriptive climate risk and ESG fund disclosure rules and updates to the Names Rule for funds using ESG labels. 

For green bonds and sustainability-linked bonds, enforcement typically falls to the SEC when the issuer is a public company or when the securities are offered to the public. The SEC enforces disclosure accuracy under general anti-fraud rules such as Rule 10b-5. If environmental performance targets are misstated or use of proceeds is misleading, liability can arise through SEC enforcement or private securities litigation.

For green loans and sustainability-linked loans, the primary monitoring responsibility rests with the parties to the loan agreement. Lenders typically require periodic reporting demonstrating whether the borrower is meeting agreed-upon environmental KPIs or use-of-proceeds restrictions. Enforcement occurs through contractual remedies such as pricing adjustments, covenant triggers, or events of default, rather than through a specific environmental finance regulator.

Private standard-setters also play a significant role. Issuers and lenders often rely on voluntary frameworks such as the ICMA Green Bond Principles, the ICMA Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles, and the LMA/LSTA Green Loan Principles. These bodies do not enforce compliance but influence market expectations, second-party opinions and ongoing reporting practices.

Environmental due diligence is a standard part of mergers and acquisitions, financing, and property deals in the United States. Parties use it to find contamination, check compliance with permits and waste rules, and estimate cleanup or upgrade costs. Findings influence price, deal structure, insurance, and who bears future risks. Lenders rely on diligence to protect collateral value and to avoid surprises that could affect repayment or foreclosure.

How It Fits Into Different Deals

The scope of diligence depends on the deal, industry and other factors such as timeline, access and cost. The following highlight some of the major issues that the authors see:

• in real estate deals, diligence focuses on site conditions, underground tanks, and historic operations that may have caused contamination;
• in corporate and asset deals, reviews also cover company-wide compliance, chemical and product obligations (TSCA, FIFRA) and operational permits (CAA, CWA, SDWA); and
• in financings, lenders commonly require due diligence to protect collateral value and avoid surprises that could affect repayment or foreclosure.

Federal project funding or approvals can add NEPA review and endangered species or wetlands considerations.

Typical Purchaser Due Diligence

It is hard to describe a typical purchaser due diligence since this will depend on several factors such as federal funding being involved, expected environment concern, what law may be triggered based on house, factory or land, etc.

Buyers usually start with a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to identify recognised environmental conditions. If concerns are found, targeted Phase II sampling (soil, groundwater, vapour) can confirm type and extent, subject to access and consent.

A clear, risk-based checklist typically includes:

• on-site and migrating contamination, underground tanks, spill history, and vapor intrusion potential;
• permits and compliance for air, wastewater, stormwater, drinking water systems and hazardous waste management;
• building materials and indoor risks – asbestos, lead-based paint, PCBs, mold and radon (as relevant);
• off-site disposal liability (manifests, past disposal facilities), nearby Superfund listings, and plume risks;
• development constraints – wetlands, endangered species, and any federal review triggers;
• broader business topics where relevant – chemical reporting, pesticide controls, oil spill planning, energy/water use, climate-related compliance assets, and ESG issues; and
• former sites, historic operations, indemnities given or received, institutional/engineering controls, and recorded environmental liens or restrictions.

There is no broad federal rule that forces sellers to disclose every environmental issue in every transaction. In practice, disclosures usually come from the purchase agreement (representations, warranties and schedules), buyer diligence requests, and lender requirements. 

Certain federal programmes do require targeted disclosures or actions. For example, sales and leases of pre‑1978 housing must include specific lead‑based paint disclosures and give access to related records. Some regulated facilities must notify agencies or arrange permit transfers at closing, and ongoing cleanup or corrective action typically continues after a sale.

Legacy contamination is a frequent concern. Owners and operators can face strict, joint and several liability for on‑site contamination, and generators can share liability at third‑party disposal sites. Migrating contamination and vapour intrusion raise health, safety and tort risks, especially near homes, schools, hospitals or drinking water sources. These issues often drive negotiations on indemnities, escrows and environmental insurance.

Compliance gaps are common and can be costly. Typical findings include expired or incomplete permits, air or water exceedances, stormwater violations, improper waste storage, and tank leaks. Building-related hazards – such as asbestos, lead-based paint, PCBs, radon and mould – add complexity to renovation plans and may trigger special work practices, certified contractors and occupant protections. 

Development constraints can affect schedule and value. Wetlands and endangered species findings can require permits, mitigation or design changes, and federal involvement may introduce extra review steps. Emerging risks such as PFAS, water scarcity and climate-related rules increasingly inform diligence, budgeting and post-closing plans. When time and access are limited, focusing on highest-risk sites, key permits and known hotspots helps parties allocate risk in a practical, defensible way.

Emerging contaminants such as PFAS are increasingly important to risk assessments, insurance, and post-closing plans.

A new major M&A due diligence concern is the rise of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws. These rules require packaging, electronics, batteries and textiles companies to register, report annual material data, and pay fees tied to the amount and type of products they place on the market. Because EPR rules differ across states and countries, buyers want a clear map of where the target sells products and whether it has met all reporting and payment requirements. These obligations can materially affect cost, risk and deal value.

Where federal approvals are involved, wetlands, endangered species and environmental review can affect design and timelines. Deals often address these risks through price adjustments, indemnities, escrows, environmental insurance and clear post-closing responsibilities.