FR 2021-04047

The notice announced by the Department of Justice outlines a proposed consent order involving environmental liability claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This legal action addresses the environmental cleanup responsibilities of Arsynco, Inc., linked to contamination at a Superfund site in Bergen County, New Jersey. As part of the resolution, the consent order permits the U.S. government to assert financial claims of over $9.5 million for cleanup costs and an additional $8.2 million to address natural resource damages. The public has been invited to comment on this proposal within 60 days, with documents accessible online or by purchasing a paper copy.

Summary of the Document

This proposed consent order is a formal agreement related to the responsibilities and liabilities of Arsynco, Inc. for environmental contamination. In bankruptcy proceedings involving the company formerly known as Aceto Corporation, the Department of Justice and New Jersey's environmental agency aim to settle obligations to restore and manage the affected areas. The underlying issue involves significant cleanup and restoration of a contaminated Superfund site, for which the government claims financial compensation.

Issues and Concerns

Multiple concerns arise from this notice. Firstly, the specific costs covered by the $9,566,000 for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) past and future expenses aren't detailed. Without clarity, there may be questions regarding how the funds will be allocated and spent. Similarly, the claim of $8,215,000 for natural resource damages lacks specifics on which resources are affected and how the compensation amount was calculated.

The legal and environmental jargon used in the document might be challenging for the public to comprehend. Terms like “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act” and “operable unit of the Ventron/Velsicol Superfund Site” may not be self-explanatory to everyone.

While public participation in reviewing the consent order is crucial, there are barriers. The $6.25 fee for obtaining a paper copy can be a prohibitive cost for some interested stakeholders. Also, the document mentions a public comment period of 60 days but does not elaborate on how those comments will be utilized or acknowledged, which could discourage participation from those who feel their feedback might not influence the final decision.

Impact on the Public

The proposed consent order represents an essential step in addressing environmental contamination and holding parties accountable. For the general public, especially residents near the affected site, the implications are significant concerning environmental health and safety. Successful cleanup efforts will benefit the broader ecosystem and potentially improve local community well-being.

Impact on Stakeholders

Positive Impact: For environmental organizations and advocates, this consent order is a victory in ensuring legal and financial responsibility for environmental damages. They might view it as progress towards more stringent enforcement of environmental laws and remediation efforts.

Negative Impact: On the flip side, stakeholders like former employees or local businesses associated with Arsynco, Inc. may face uncertainty or financial repercussions from these large claims. Additionally, nearby communities could experience delays or disruptions during remediation activities, impacting daily life.

In conclusion, while the intention behind this legal document is clear—to remediate and restore contaminated areas—its details and costs require further clarification to ensure all stakeholders understand the full scope and potential implications. Public engagement during the comment period is essential to address these concerns.

The document from the Federal Register discusses a proposed consent order involving claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Two significant financial allocations are referenced in the document, each related to environmental and natural resource damages associated with a Superfund site in New Jersey.

Summary of Financial Allocations

The main financial elements of the consent order include the allocation of funds for environmental cleanup and natural resource damages:

1. $9,566,000 for Response Costs: The United States, through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), shall have an allowed claim of $9,566,000. This amount is intended to cover both past and potential future costs related to the agency's response to environmental conditions at the site in question. However, the document does not provide a detailed breakdown of what specific actions or costs are covered by this allocation, which leaves open questions about how exactly these funds will be used and distributed.

2. $8,215,000 for Natural Resource Damages: In addition to the EPA's claim, a separate claim of $8,215,000 is allocated for natural resource damages. This claim is on behalf of the Department of Interior, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the State of New Jersey, collectively referred to as the "Trustees." This amount presumably covers damages to natural resources resulting from the contamination, yet there is a lack of detail explaining which specific resources are included or how this amount was calculated, adding to potential concerns about transparency and thoroughness.

Accessibility and Financial Barriers

Another financial reference in the document is the cost associated with obtaining a paper copy of the consent order:

• $6.25 for Reproduction Costs: A minimal fee of $6.25 is charged for a physical copy of the consent order, which may not seem substantial at first glance. However, for some stakeholders, especially those who do not have consistent internet access or who might face economic hardships, this fee could pose a barrier to accessing important documentation.

Related Issues and Considerations

The financial allocations mentioned in the document relate to several identified issues. For one, the lack of detailed allocation and reasoning behind the significant sums for response costs and natural resource damages might contribute to misunderstandings or mistrust among the public. People may question how these figures were determined and whether they adequately address the environmental impacts.

Moreover, while a 60-day comment period is provided, the lack of clear information on how these comments will be processed or acknowledged may challenge public participation. Individuals might be disinclined to partake in the feedback process if they feel their input might not be considered or if they do not fully understand the implications due to the complex financial and legal language used in the order.

In summary, the financial references within the proposed consent order entail significant sums aimed at resolving environmental liabilities. However, the opacity regarding how these sums are calculated or will be utilized may raise questions among stakeholders, advocating for a need for more detailed breakdowns to facilitate greater public understanding and engagement.