Photo of Chelsey Noble

Chelsey focuses her practice on environmental law, specifically on natural resources. She supports clients from diverse industries in adhering to environmental laws and regulations. Chelsey provides creative and strategic counsel in litigation and transactional matters and conducts thorough due diligence.

The regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or “forever chemicals,” was a focal point for the Biden administration. In April 2024, the administration, through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), issued two key PFAS rules. The first set nationwide drinking water standards, or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), for six types of PFAS, and the second designated PFOA and PFOS, and their salts and structural isomers, as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Both rules are currently being challenged in court, although no judicial stays were requested or are in place.

At the end of January, a federal judge issued a ruling in a high-profile environmental justice case, Louisiana v. EPA, brought by Louisiana against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The ruling temporarily blocks EPA and DOJ attempts to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act against Louisiana state agencies. Beyond that, the decision has potentially significant ramifications for the Biden administration’s ongoing environmental justice initiatives.

Introduction

On November 30, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI).[1] With this proposal, EPA aims to simplify and expand upon the 2021 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) and the original 1991 Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). The proposed LCRI outlines aggressive measures to achieve further reductions of lead in drinking water. This initiative brings to the forefront a critical question: Are the potential health benefits projected by EPA enough to justify the scope and extent of the rule and its related hefty price tag?

*Chelsey Noble is a law clerk in the Richmond office and is not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction.

In 2020, New Jersey enacted a first-of-its-kind environmental justice statute, the Environmental Justice Law (EJ Law). The EJ Law requires that permit applicants for certain water, waste, and air facilities located, wholly or partially, in overburdened communities prepare an environmental justice impact statement (EJIS) and engage in meaningful public participation. Significantly, the EJ Law included a provision requiring the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) to deny a permit if a disproportionate impact on overburdened communities cannot be avoided.

*Chelsey Noble is a law clerk in the Richmond office and is not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction.

On April 21, President Biden signed Executive Order No. 14096 (EO), titled “Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice For All.” The EO builds on prior executive orders by President Biden related to environmental justice, racial equity, and climate change, as well as on the original executive order on environmental justice issued in 1994 by President Clinton (Executive Order No. 12898). Overall, the EO establishes a stronger framework with specific milestones for implementing environmental justice across federal agencies. Below is a summary of the EO’s key provisions.