1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Kirsten L. Nathanson

Kirsten L. Nathanson

Partner
Partner
a25hdGhhbnNvbkBjcm93ZWxsLmNvbQ==
VCardLinkedIn
VCardLinkedIn

Areas of Focus

Overview

Kirsten Nathanson is a strategic environmental lawyer and co-chair of Crowell’s Environment, Energy & Natural Resources practice. When companies face environmental regulatory enforcement—whether from the U.S. EPA, the DOJ, other government agencies, citizen activist groups, or private parties—they turn to Kirsten as an astute and pragmatic advisor who navigates complex legal risk and drives toward efficient, favorable outcomes.

Kirsten's practice encompasses environmental litigation, enforcement defense, mediation, remediation risk assessment, and regulatory counseling across the major federal environmental and public lands statutes. Her litigation docket spans the Clean Water Act, CERCLA, RCRA, FIFRA, NEPA, and the Endangered Species Act, covering citizen suit defense, regulatory challenges, remediation cost recovery and defense, Administrative Procedure Act actions, and EPA enforcement proceedings. Her practice also reflects a distinctive focus on consensus-based dispute resolution—multilateral negotiations and mediation—recognizing that durable solutions often require more than courtroom advocacy alone.

Kirsten serves as a forward-thinking counselor on PFAS and emerging contaminants, particularly where those issues intersect with regulatory enforcement and dispute resolution. Her client base spans the energy, chemicals, agricultural technology, and transportation sectors, including Fortune 50 industrial companies navigating some of the most consequential environmental challenges of the current regulatory landscape.

Kirsten has been recognized as a leading environmental lawyer in Washington, D.C. by Chambers and Partners USA continuously since 2013. Her 2025 Chambers ranking reflects peer and client recognition that she is "particularly notable for her Superfund work," "a fabulous litigator," "excellent," "a great communicator and very responsive," and "an expert in the field." She is currently ranked Band 2 among environmental attorneys in Washington, D.C.

Kirsten is an elected Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, one of the most selective peer-recognition organizations in the environmental law bar. She has served on the firm's Management Board and Executive Committee. She was a founding President of the Washington, D.C. Chapter of the Women's Energy Network.

Career & Education

    • University of Pennsylvania, B.A., cum laude, 1992
    • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., with high honors, The Order of the Coif, 1998
    • University of Pennsylvania, B.A., cum laude, 1992
    • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., with high honors, The Order of the Coif, 1998

    • District of Columbia
    • Maryland
    • Supreme Court of the United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
    • District of Columbia
    • Maryland
    • Supreme Court of the United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

  • Professional Activities and Memberships

    • Fellow, American College of Environmental Lawyers (ACOEL), 2024-Present
    • Leadership Council, Environmental Law Institute
    • Past President, Women's Energy Network, Washington, D.C. Chapter
    • Past President, Energy & Mineral Law Foundation
    • Member, American Bar Association, Section on Environment, Energy & Resources

    Professional Activities and Memberships

    • Fellow, American College of Environmental Lawyers (ACOEL), 2024-Present
    • Leadership Council, Environmental Law Institute
    • Past President, Women's Energy Network, Washington, D.C. Chapter
    • Past President, Energy & Mineral Law Foundation
    • Member, American Bar Association, Section on Environment, Energy & Resources
Kirsten Nathanson has an environmental practice covering the full range of environmental statutes and regulations. She acts for clients in litigation and enforcement defense. She is particularly notable for her Superfund work.

— Chambers USA, 2025

Kirsten's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.28.26

PFAS Regulatory Alert: EPA Rolls Back RCRA Proposed Rule on “Hazardous Waste” but Does Not Disturb Proposed RCRA Rule on PFAS

Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a February 2024 Biden administration proposed rule, “Definition of Hazardous Waste Applicable to Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units,” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The withdrawn proposal would have revised RCRA corrective action regulations to expressly apply the broader statutory definition of “hazardous waste,” rather than only the narrower regulatory definition. Now, EPA is maintaining the status quo for corrective action under RCRA. However, EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed RCRA hazardous waste definition makes no mention of its corresponding proposal from 2024 to list nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as RCRA hazardous constituents.[2] This disjointed withdrawal, while providing some certainty for regulated entities, does not resolve how EPA plans to address PFAS under the RCRA program....

View All Insights

Representative Matters

Current representative matters include:

  • Representing a major chemical manufacturer in multimedia PFAS investigation and enforcement action under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and CERCLA.
  • Serving as federal environmental counsel to several corporations across multiple facilities and CERCLA sites, including significant landfill and contaminated sediment waterway sites and allocation mediation proceedings.
  • Representing leading agriculture technology companies across a docket of litigation challenging product registrations under FIFRA and other laws in federal courts.
  • Representing a Fortune 50 company in the strategic management of legacy environmental liabilities.
  • Representing multiple clients in CERCLA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act enforcement actions at the state and federal levels, including vapor intrusion, groundwater plumes, and ethanol production waste.

Prior matters of note include:

  • Represented a Fortune 10 energy company in CERCLA contribution litigation against the United States.
  • Represented agricultural technology company in litigation challenge to California Department of Pesticide Regulation action under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
  • Represented a major transportation company in defending a CERCLA cost recovery claim by the United States.
  • Provided strategic counseling on Sustainability Accounting Standards Board standards for ESG disclosures, particularly with regard to endangered species.
  • Defended a large natural gas producer against threatened Clean Water Act citizen suits related to hydraulic fracturing operations in the Marcellus Shale.
  • Litigated the first Endangered Species Act citizen suit against a wind energy project.
  • Provided strategic and compliance counseling to a major power-generating facility on federal environmental regulatory requirements, such as EPA’s Coal Combustion Residuals Rule, including enforcement schemes and related litigation risk.
  • Represented a major mining company in multiple citizen suit litigation matters under NEPA and other federal laws challenging federal leasing and mine plan approval actions.
  • Defended a Fortune 50 company in a citizen group challenge to the company’s environmental remediation activities at a historic industrial facility.
  • Represented a coal company in a citizen suit brought under the RCRA and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act related to the company’s handling and disposal of coal ash.
  • Defended a Clean Water Act criminal enforcement action against a private wastewater treatment corporation.
  • Litigated through trial a Clean Water Act citizen suit for a major animal agriculture corporation.
  • Served as national coordinating counsel to a Fortune 10 company in its toxic tort litigation.
  • Conducted an internal Clean Water Act investigation for a corporation related to historical development activities in wetlands.
  • Conducted regulatory litigation for the National Mining Association under the SMCRA and for agricultural trade associations under the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.
  • Conducted an internal investigation and a risk assessment for a Fortune 100 corporation related to the company’s remediation activities.
  • Defended EPA enforcement actions under CERCLA, including defense of unilateral administrative orders.
  • Conducted NEPA litigation for a land developer needing public lands access for a planned resort development.

Kirsten's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.28.26

PFAS Regulatory Alert: EPA Rolls Back RCRA Proposed Rule on “Hazardous Waste” but Does Not Disturb Proposed RCRA Rule on PFAS

Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a February 2024 Biden administration proposed rule, “Definition of Hazardous Waste Applicable to Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units,” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The withdrawn proposal would have revised RCRA corrective action regulations to expressly apply the broader statutory definition of “hazardous waste,” rather than only the narrower regulatory definition. Now, EPA is maintaining the status quo for corrective action under RCRA. However, EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed RCRA hazardous waste definition makes no mention of its corresponding proposal from 2024 to list nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as RCRA hazardous constituents.[2] This disjointed withdrawal, while providing some certainty for regulated entities, does not resolve how EPA plans to address PFAS under the RCRA program....

View All Insights

Recognition

  • Chambers USA,  Environment – District of Columbia, 2013–Present
  • Fellow, American College of Environmental Lawyers, 2024–Present
  • The Best Lawyers in America: Litigation – Environmental, 2024–Present

Kirsten's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.28.26

PFAS Regulatory Alert: EPA Rolls Back RCRA Proposed Rule on “Hazardous Waste” but Does Not Disturb Proposed RCRA Rule on PFAS

Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a February 2024 Biden administration proposed rule, “Definition of Hazardous Waste Applicable to Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units,” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The withdrawn proposal would have revised RCRA corrective action regulations to expressly apply the broader statutory definition of “hazardous waste,” rather than only the narrower regulatory definition. Now, EPA is maintaining the status quo for corrective action under RCRA. However, EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed RCRA hazardous waste definition makes no mention of its corresponding proposal from 2024 to list nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as RCRA hazardous constituents.[2] This disjointed withdrawal, while providing some certainty for regulated entities, does not resolve how EPA plans to address PFAS under the RCRA program....

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.28.26

PFAS Regulatory Alert: EPA Rolls Back RCRA Proposed Rule on “Hazardous Waste” but Does Not Disturb Proposed RCRA Rule on PFAS

Blog Post | 10.07.25

Environmental Regulations & AI? Look to Data Centers, the 21st Century Brick and Mortar for Big Tech

Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.23.25

The Other PFAS Shoe Drops: EPA Will Retain and Defend Its CERCLA PFAS Regulation

Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.16.25

EPA Seeks Vacatur of Majority of Biden-Era PFAS Regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act - A Sign of More to Come?

View All Insights

Practices

Industries

Kirsten's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.28.26

PFAS Regulatory Alert: EPA Rolls Back RCRA Proposed Rule on “Hazardous Waste” but Does Not Disturb Proposed RCRA Rule on PFAS

Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a February 2024 Biden administration proposed rule, “Definition of Hazardous Waste Applicable to Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units,” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The withdrawn proposal would have revised RCRA corrective action regulations to expressly apply the broader statutory definition of “hazardous waste,” rather than only the narrower regulatory definition. Now, EPA is maintaining the status quo for corrective action under RCRA. However, EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed RCRA hazardous waste definition makes no mention of its corresponding proposal from 2024 to list nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as RCRA hazardous constituents.[2] This disjointed withdrawal, while providing some certainty for regulated entities, does not resolve how EPA plans to address PFAS under the RCRA program....

View All Insights