2.5 Environmental Regulations — State
Both the EPA and state environmental agencies regulate the impact of business operations on the environment. The EPA develops and enforces regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. Similarly, state agencies develop and enforce regulations that implement laws enacted by a state’s legislature. Further, under certain federal environmental laws, state regulatory agencies may earn authorization to promulgate regulations to implement and enforce a federal program if the state regulations are at least as stringent as the federal standards.
For example, the EPA’s final rule on regulating the disposal of coal
combustion residuals (CCR) as solid waste (the “CCR rule”), which became effective
on October 14, 2015, establishes minimum national criteria that must be met by all
CCR disposal units. We have observed, however, that certain states have imposed
standards that are more stringent than those minimum criteria. See Section 5.5.1.1 for
details.
2.5.1 Federal-State Partnerships
The principle of cooperative federalism underlies the major environmental regulatory statutes enacted by Congress in the 1970s, including the CWA and RCRA. In such statutes, federal and state governments share some degree of regulatory authority. A federal law may allow states to assume responsibility for carrying out a regulatory program if the states demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement and enforce the law. Federal authorization of a state program is usually a prerequisite for receiving federal funding to help support the program.
States are asked to implement and enforce federal laws while retaining the power to create laws that are more stringent than federal laws. Thus, the vast majority of federal environmental laws are implemented by states. The same is largely true for Indian tribes, which remain sovereign over their lands. In incorporating cooperative federalism principles into environmental laws, Congress has recognized the roles that states have historically played as protectors of their resources, as well as the local nature of many environmental issues.
Federal environmental laws that states help
enforce include the following:
In a federal-state partnership, state environmental regulations implement the federal environmental
regulatory requirements. Further, in circumstances in which federal environmental statutes are silent
about a state’s responsibility to implement the requirements, states have developed and implemented
environmental laws to protect local environmental resources. Most importantly, for companies
managing environmental liabilities, each state has implemented environmental cleanup statutes and
regulations to enforce the remediation of releases of hazardous substances into the environment.
When the complexity and hazards of contamination do not rise to the level of the Superfund, which is
regulated by the EPA, the states regulate the environmental cleanup activities at the local level.
2.5.2 State Environmental Cleanup Regulations
Many states have enacted pollution remediation laws that are similar to CERCLA and the remediation
provisions of RCRA. State environmental laws and regulations, like federal environmental laws, may
impose liability on (1) current owners and operators of a facility where hazardous substances were
previously released or are in danger of being released and (2) entities that owned or operated the facility
at the time the hazardous substances were disposed of at the facility (i.e., the historical owners and
operators). The state environmental rules set standardized procedures for the assessment, monitoring,
cleanup, reporting, and postresponse action care of properties under state jurisdiction.
Such procedures require an owner or operator to notify the state regulatory agency if contamination
has been identified at concentrations that exceed specified “action levels” defined in the applicable
rules. For example, under the Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) regulated by the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), when there is an actual or probable human exposure to a COC
at a concentration that exceeds the Tier 1 human health protective concentration limit (the Texas
“cleanup standard”), the regulated entity must notify the TCEQ of the contamination and then conduct
response actions specified under TRRP. That is, even if the state regulatory agency has not initiated
an enforcement action, the regulated entity has an obligation under the state environmental statute
to notify the regulator and then conduct cleanup activities in compliance with the state environmental
regulatory regime. Most state environmental regulations impose a similar notification provision to
ensure that the regulator and any potentially affected parties (e.g., neighboring property owners) are
properly notified.
Most of these regulations allow regulated entities to pursue environmental remediation activities under
one of the following schemes:
- Corrective action programs — The state regulator uses a “command-and-control” method to lead remediation activities. Legal documents such as administrative orders may be used to direct the action, and the regulated entity must receive approval from the regulator at each step of the process. This process is similar to that for remediation activities regulated by the EPA under CERCLA and RCRA.
- Voluntary cleanup/remediation programs — The regulated entity (sometimes called the
“volunteer”) leads remediation activities and receives administrative, technical, and legal
incentives from the state regulator to encourage cleanup of contaminated sites. State voluntary cleanup programs (VCPs) usually allow the entity to use risk-based cleanup principles, discussed below, in determining site-specific cleanup standards and remedial approaches.Note that the term “voluntary” does not mean that the remediation activities are optional or discretionary. If a regulated entity does not proceed under the VCP, the state has the authority to direct the cleanup under a corrective action or similar program. Therefore, since a company’s obligations under a state VCP are not undertaken voluntarily and at the sole discretion of management, they are considered to be environmental obligations and should be accounted for under the guidance in ASC 410-30.
2.5.2.1 Contaminants of Emerging Concern
Contaminants of emerging concern are important because the risk they pose to
human health and the environment is not yet fully understood. In November
2017, the EPA issued a technical fact sheet about two contaminants of
emerging concern, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA). The technical fact sheet stated, in part:
PFOS and PFOA are part of a larger group of chemicals called per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). PFASs, which are highly fluorinated
aliphatic molecules, have been released to the environment through
industrial manufacturing and through use and disposal of PFAS-containing
products (Liu and Mejia Avendano 2013). PFOS and PFOA are the most
widely studied of the PFAS chemicals. PFOS and PFOA are persistent in
the environment and resistant to typical environmental degradation
processes. As a result, they are widely distributed across all trophic
levels and are found in soil, air and groundwater at sites across the
United States. The toxicity, mobility and bioaccumulation potential of
PFOS and PFOA result in potential adverse effects on the environment and
human health.
In 2019, we observed that states were taking more of an active role in
addressing PFAS chemicals. For example, in March 2019, New Jersey issued a
directive to some of the biggest chemical manufacturers in the nation to
spend millions of dollars to assess the extent of PFAS contamination and
eventually clean up the pollution. In addition, in May 2019, New Hampshire
filed a lawsuit against the original makers of PFAS chemicals for allegedly
contaminating the state’s drinking water.
Although states have been taking more of a lead role than
the federal government in attempting to enforce remediation associated with
PFAS contamination, the EPA in 2019 and 2020 took actions in accordance with
its February 2019 PFAS Action Plan to help state and local communities
address PFAS and protect public health. Those actions include the
following:
- On February 20, 2020, the EPA issued preliminary determinations to regulate PFOA and PFOS, which were published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2020. Further, in a February 2020 program update to its February 2019 PFAS Action Plan, the EPA indicated that it “has multiple criminal investigations underway concerning PFAS-related pollution.”
- The EPA initiated the regulatory development process for listing PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA.
In accordance with the EPA’s February 2019 PFAS Action Plan, regulatory
developments occurring at either the federal or state level will call for
the cleanup and monitoring of PFASs.
On December 20, 2021, the EPA finalized its Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule (UCMR 5), which was published in the Federal
Register on December 27, 2021. UCMR 5 requires sample collection for
29 PFASs between 2023 and 2025. Specifically, in a manner consistent with
the EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, UCMR 5 provides for the collection of new
data that are critically needed to improve the EPA’s understanding of how
frequently, and the levels at which, 29 PFASs (and lithium) are found in the
nation’s drinking water systems.
Further, in May 2022, the EPA added five PFASs to a list of risk-based values
for site cleanups. These values, known as Regional Screening Levels and
Regional Remedial Management Levels, will help the EPA determine whether a
response or remediation activities are necessary.
The data obtained in accordance with the EPA’s recent regulatory actions are
expected to provide critical tools needed for Superfund and other EPA
programs to investigate contamination and protect people from PFASs by using
the latest peer-reviewed science.
2.5.2.1.1 Recent Rulemaking Developments Related to PFASs
2.5.2.1.1.1 Definition of Hazardous Waste and Listing of Specific PFASs as RCRA Hazardous Constituents
In February 2024, the EPA issued a
proposed rule to amend
the definition of hazardous waste as it pertains to cleanups
at permitted hazardous waste facilities. The aim of the
proposed amendment was to ensure that the EPA’s regulations
explicitly encompassed the authority of the EPA and
authorized states to mandate the cleanup of a broader range
of substances, including contaminants of emerging concern
such as PFASs. However, on May 8, 2026, the EPA
withdrew this proposed
rule, concluding that it “would have complicated, rather
than contributed to, efficient implementation of corrective
action” and that existing RCRA permit conditions already
provide adequate authority to impose protective
requirements.
Also in February 2024, the EPA issued a
proposed rule to amend
its regulations related to RCRA to include nine PFAS
compounds as RCRA hazardous constituents. These PFASs would
be listed among the substances “for consideration in RCRA
facility assessments and, where necessary, further
investigation and cleanup through the RCRA corrective action
process at RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities.”
Both the proposed rule on amending the
definition of hazardous waste (before its withdrawal) and
the proposed rule on including nine PFAS compounds as RCRA
hazardous constituents were geared toward strengthening
protections for communities and drinking water supplies
located near the 1,740 permitted hazardous waste facilities
in the United States. RCRA requires facilities that treat,
store, or dispose of hazardous waste to safeguard health and
the environment by investigating and cleaning up hazardous
releases into soil, groundwater, surface water, and air.
Hazardous waste cleanups are a core function of the EPA’s
land protection programs, addressing contamination that
poses risks to human health and the environment in
communities across the country.
2.5.2.1.1.2 CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designation for PFOA and PFOS
A significant regulatory milestone was reached in April 2024, when
the EPA issued a final rule (which was published in the Federal Register on May
8, 2024, and became effective on July 8, 2024) designating PFOA and
PFOS, including their salts and structural isomers, as hazardous
substances under CERCLA. Under the final rule, entities are required
to report releases of PFOA and PFOS that meet or exceed a reportable
quantity of one pound within a 24-hour period to (1) the National
Response Center and (2) state, tribal, and local emergency
responders. The CERCLA hazardous substance designation also subjects
PRPs — including past and present owners and operators of
contaminated properties, as well as transporters and arrangers — to
CERCLA’s strict liability, retroactive liability, and joint and
several liability schemes for cleanup of PFOA and PFOS
contamination.
On September 17, 2025, the EPA announced that it would retain this CERCLA
hazardous substance designation for PFOA and PFOS and continue to
defend the final rule in ongoing litigation. The EPA simultaneously
announced its intent “to develop a CERCLA section 102(a) Framework
Rule” that would “provide a uniform approach to guide future
hazardous substance designations, including how the agency will
consider the costs of proposed designations.”
2.5.2.1.1.3 National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for PFASs
On April 26, 2024, the EPA’s final rule establishing a PFAS
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) was published in
the Federal Register. Effective as of June 25, 2024, the
NPDWR sets maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PFOA, PFOS, and
four additional PFASs — perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS),
perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
(HFPO-DA, commonly known as GenX), and any Hazard Index mixture
containing two or more of the chemicals PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and
perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS). These MCLs represent the first
enforceable federal drinking water limits for PFASs and carry
significant implications for public water systems nationwide.
On May 14, 2025, the EPA announced plans to modify the
scope and implementation timeline of the NPDWR’s drinking water
standards. Subsequently, the EPA issued two proposed rules to amend
the NPDWR, which were published in the Federal Register on
May 20, 2026. One proposed rule would retain the
NPDWR’s MCLs for PFOA and PFOS while extending the deadline for
public water systems to comply with those limits from April 26,
2029, to April 26, 2031. The other proposed rule would rescind
the Biden-era drinking water regulatory provisions for the four
additional PFASs noted above. Both proposed rules provide for a
comment period through July 20, 2026.
2.5.2.2 Remedial Action Process
The remedial action process under state environmental regulations is similar to the federal CERCLA and RCRA processes. The table below identifies (1) the steps under CERCLA and RCRA, respectively, and (2) the state equivalents.
Process Step | CERCLA | RCRA | State Equivalents |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | Remedial investigation | RFI | Remedial investigation, site investigation report, affected property assessment report |
2 | Feasibility study | CMS | Feasibility study, remedial alternatives analysis |
3 | Remedial action plan | CMS | Remedial action plan, remedial action work plan |
4 | ROD | Statement of basis | Remedial action plan, remedial action work plan |
5 | Remedial design | CMI | Remedial action plan, remedial action work plan |
6 | Remedial action | CMI | Remedial action |
7 | OM&M | CMI | Response action effectiveness report, monitoring reports |
2.5.2.3 Permits
Some state environmental laws require companies to obtain a permit before they can (1) emit or discharge a pollutant into air or water, (2) dispose of hazardous waste, or (3) engage in certain regulated activities. Federal, state, and local government agencies also use permits to implement environmental laws intended to protect specific types of resources such as wetlands or endangered species. Most environmental permits are issued by state governments and may impose obligations related to long-term monitoring activities or facility closure activities.
RCRA permits are frequently issued by state agencies (and sometimes by EPA
regional offices) to help ensure the safe treatment, storage, and disposal
of hazardous waste. Like operational provisions, landfill permits issued
under RCRA impose an ARO at the end of the life of the landfill. RCRA
permits also impose obligations on owners and operators of RCRA hazardous
waste management facilities to investigate and clean up on-site and off-site
contamination caused by current and historic activities. Because many states
are authorized by the EPA to operate state-led corrective action programs,
these state-issued RCRA permits are regulatory drivers that companies must
consider when determining their environmental obligations and AROs.
2.5.3 Transaction-Triggered Environmental Laws
During the early 1980s, commercial transactions became the target of state
environmental laws that linked real estate deals to government-sanctioned and
government-monitored environmental cleanups. These “transaction-triggered” (or
transfer) statutes are intended to target and ensure the cleanup of hazardous
substances at particular locations when specific events trigger application of
the laws.
For example, the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA) requires the
owner or operator of an industrial establishment to investigate and remediate
the property in anticipation of a property transfer, such as when the business
ceases operations or is sold. As a precondition to the property transfer, the
owner or operator must either certify that no discharge occurred (or that any
discharge has already been remediated) or retain a licensed site remediation
professional (LSRP) to oversee investigation and remediation. Upon completion of
remediation, the LSRP issues a “response action outcome” (RAO), which, under the
2009 New Jersey Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA), has replaced the formerly
issued “no further action” (NFA) letter. Alternatively, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) may execute a remediation
agreement with the owner or operator, allowing the transaction to proceed before
the completion of all ISRA requirements. ISRA is intended to ensure that a
financially responsible party remains obligated to perform any necessary
remediation after closing. It is also important to note that ISRA is triggered,
and additional investigation and remediation may be required, even if the site
is already subject to federal cleanup procedures under CERCLA or RCRA.
Therefore, dual pathways for investigation and remediation may be ongoing to
comply with this transfer statute.
On November 17, 2025, the New Jersey Register published
an NJDEP final rule that significantly amends the
ISRA Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:26B) and related site remediation regulations to codify
provisions of the SRRA 2.0 Act (P.L. 2019, c. 263). The same day, the New
Jersey Register published the NJDEP’s reproposed rule on due diligence discharge
reporting, which would require contamination discovered during preclosing due
diligence to be reported to the property owner. As of July 15, 2026, the
reproposed rule, whose comment period ran through January 16, 2026, has not been
finalized. See Section
2.5.4 for more information about the NJDEP’s final rule and
reproposed rule.
States with transfer laws that similarly impose an obligation to perform assessment and remediation
activities in connection with a transaction include, but may not be limited to, the following:
- Connecticut — Connecticut’s transaction-triggered environmental program underwent a fundamental shift on March 1, 2026, when the Connecticut Property Transfer Act (formerly known as the Transfer Act) sunsetted and was replaced with the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection’s (DEEP’s) Release-Based Cleanup Regulations (RBCRs), which the state legislature’s Regulations Review Committee had approved on April 22, 2025. Before sunsetting, the Transfer Act required a transferor to notify both the transferee and DEEP at the time of transfer whether a release of hazardous waste or substances had occurred at an establishment; if so, one of the parties to the transaction was required to commit to cleaning it up. Under the new release-based program, transaction-triggered filing obligations no longer apply to transfers occurring after March 1, 2026; instead, Connecticut has transitioned to a release-based reporting and remediation approach more closely aligned with that in most other states. Establishments already enrolled in the Transfer Act program before the sunset date remain subject to Transfer Act compliance obligations for the foreseeable future, with a pathway available to transition to the new program. See Section 2.5.4 for more information about the RBCRs.
- Delaware — The Delaware Transfer or Closure of Establishments Law requires that, during the transfer of properties or operations, or the termination of operations at which at least 1 million pounds of hazardous substances are used or generated, environmental investigations be performed and financial assurances established to ensure that the site will be stabilized or secured.
Other states, such as California, Iowa, Michigan, and Oregon, do not
specifically mandate environmental cleanup as a prerequisite to transactions but
require disclosure of environmental conditions before the transfer of an
interest in real property or a business. A seller with knowledge of an actual or
suspected hazardous substance release must disclose to the buyer the general
nature and extent of the release. Failure to comply with the disclosure
requirements may impose civil and criminal liability, as well as harsh penalties
such as strict liability for the cost of remediating the release.
2.5.4 Licensed Environmental Professionals
Several states have enacted laws establishing programs that license private
environmental professionals to oversee the assessment and remediation of
contaminated sites. Usually, a licensed environmental professional (LEP) is a
member of the third-party environmental consulting firm conducting the
assessment and remediation activities on behalf of the owner or operator. As
part of these programs, the role and responsibilities of the consultant have
expanded from the responsibilities under the state-led programs. Massachusetts,
New Jersey, and Connecticut have these types of licensing programs, although
their programs have undergone significant regulatory evolution in recent
years.
In 1993, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection implemented
new rules for reporting, assessing, and cleaning up releases of oil and
hazardous material. Collectively known as the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP), the rules lay out a
detailed process for when and how contaminated sites must be assessed and
cleaned up. The rules privatized the cleanup of contaminated sites in
Massachusetts to allow the state to focus its limited resources on the tasks
requiring government attention. Under the MCP, responsible parties are required
to hire a licensed site professional (LSP) to manage and oversee the required
assessment and cleanup activities. An LSP is an environmental scientist or
engineer experienced in the cleanup of oil and hazardous material contamination.
The LSP works with responsible parties to develop and execute a scope of work
that will satisfy the state requirements set forth in the MCP for addressing
contaminated property. Significant amendments to the MCP took effect on March 1, 2024; key
changes include (1) finalized cleanup standards for six PFAS compounds and (2)
updated guidance on calculating Exposure Point Concentrations in soil that
places greater emphasis on professional judgment.
In 2009, New Jersey reformed its site remediation process to shift much of the
responsibility for remediation oversight and approvals from the NJDEP to private
contractors. These contractors must meet the state licensing requirements for
certification as LSRPs and are required to comply with all remediation statutes
and rules. They are bound by a strict code of ethics, violation of which could
result in the assessment of penalties and suspension or revocation of an LSRP’s
license. In most situations, the NJDEP is not required or authorized to (1)
review and approve investigation and cleanup plans in advance or (2) issue NFA
letters at the conclusion of cleanup activities. Rather, the LSRPs determine the
propriety of the work at the conclusion of the investigations and cleanups and
issue the final sign-off document, known as the “response action outcome” (RAO).
An LSRP issues an RAO only after a site has been properly investigated and
remediated in accordance with the remediation standards and technical
requirements for site remediation. The NJDEP monitors the LSRP’s remediation
progress and actions by requiring that forms and reports be submitted as
remediation milestones are reached.
The NJDEP’s LSRP program continues to evolve. On November 17,
2025, the New Jersey Register published an NJDEP final rule (previously discussed in
Section 2.5.3)
that expands the remedial action permit (RAP) framework to include a third media
category (indoor air) and allows a single combined RAP to cover soil,
groundwater, and indoor air, replacing the prior media-specific permit
structure; updated RAP forms reflecting these changes were released in February
2026. Also on November 17, 2025, the New Jersey Register published the
NJDEP’s reproposed rule on due diligence discharge
reporting (previously discussed in Section 2.5.3), which would require a
party conducting due diligence to notify only the record property owner (as
opposed to both the NJDEP and the record property owner, as would have been
required under the NJDEP’s proposed rule published in the New
Jersey Register on October 21, 2024) upon discovering contamination,
leaving the property owner or other responsible party obligated to notify the
NJDEP. As previously noted, the reproposed rule, whose comment period ran
through January 16, 2026, has not been finalized as of July 15, 2026.
In Connecticut, LEPs are authorized to work on sites that qualify as
“establishments” if a transfer of ownership is involved. Under the Connecticut
Transfer Act, an establishment is any facility where dry cleaning, furniture
stripping, or auto body repairs have been conducted; any facility where
hazardous waste has been treated, stored, recycled, handled, or disposed of; or
any other facility where more than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste has been
generated in any one month. LEPs may also investigate and remediate contaminated
sites under the voluntary remediation program and verify that a parcel has
complied with remediation standard regulations. However, Connecticut’s
regulatory framework is undergoing a fundamental transformation. As discussed in
Section 2.5.3,
the Connecticut DEEP’s RBCRs became effective on March 1, 2026, superseding the
Transfer Act for sites not previously enrolled in the Transfer Act program.
Under the new framework, cleanup obligations will be triggered by the discovery
of actual environmental releases rather than real estate transfers, with sites
assigned to one of four risk-based tiers that determine the applicable level of
DEEP or LEP oversight. The regulations also establish a new class of
environmental professional, the permitted environmental professional (PEP), who
is authorized to oversee defined categories of lower-risk cleanups alongside
LEPs.
As a result of licensing programs, the time required to complete remediation activities has decreased in the states noted above. Before the licensing programs were established, cleanups at some sites took more than 20 years to complete because of delays associated with state agency review and approval turnaround times. Now that the LEP is the decision maker, cleanups in most cases are driven by the real estate market and are performed in less time than the period allowed by statute. All three states report that the rate of site closure exceeds the rate of discovery and that case backlogs have therefore decreased.
2.5.5 Risk-Based Cleanup
Like many responsible parties, state environmental agencies are seeking methods that will allow the use of available monetary resources to accomplish the greatest reduction in risk. Most state environmental agencies have adopted a risk-based decision-making process to provide a framework for determining cleanup requirements at contaminated sites. Risk-based programs aim to protect human health and the environment while providing more options for fulfilling regulatory requirements associated with remediation of contaminated properties. Under these risk-based programs, owners and operators can most often achieve regulatory closure more cost-effectively, and return the affected property to productive use more quickly.
The basic premise of risk-based remediation is that the decision to remediate a site should be based on
the need to reduce the actual or potential risk that specific contaminants pose to human or ecological
receptors. Risk-based decision-making involves (1) the evaluation of current and reasonably likely
future risks to human health and the environment associated with contamination at a site and (2) use
of that information to develop the best combination of cleanup and site management to reduce risks
to acceptable levels. The process includes identification of hazards, assessment of exposure and
toxicity, characterization of risk, and informed decision-making. Fully informed decisions about potential
remedial actions cannot be made without adequate site characterization to identify the nature and
extent of contamination. This information is gathered during site assessment processes and presented
in a conceptual site model or similar assessment report.
As noted in Section
2.3.4.2.5, for a risk to exist, there must be (1) a source of
chemical release, (2) a human or ecological receptor that is potentially exposed
to the released chemicals, and (3) an environmental exposure pathway connecting
the source and the receptor(s). The chart below lists examples of these
elements.
If any of these elements is absent, the exposure pathways are incomplete and no risk is present. If
a risk is present, it may be reduced or eliminated through (1) removal of the source or receptor or
(2) interruption of the pathway. The goal of risk-based remediation is to reduce present and future risk
in a cost-effective manner through the use of one or more of the following risk reduction techniques:
- Chemical source reduction — Achieved by physical removal or control of the COCs.
- Receptor restriction — Land use controls (e.g., restrictive covenants) and physical barriers (e.g., concrete caps and site fencing) can prevent COC exposure until source concentrations are reduced below risk levels.
- Chemical pathway elimination — Examples include placing restrictions on excavation or groundwater use to prevent on-site or off-site receptors from making contact with chemicals of concern.
Risk-based cleanup standards provide greater flexibility because they are based on actual land use (e.g., commercial or industrial) rather than unrealistic maximum exposure assumptions (e.g., pristine conditions). If future land use can be controlled and groundwater use can be restricted, less stringent cleanup standards can be applied because risk is mitigated. Risk-based cleanup standards allow flexibility to choose between a more rapid and costly remediation approach, which may provide more immediate, unrestricted land use, or a less expensive natural attention option, which would most likely require long-term monitoring and restrictions on both land and groundwater use.