Chemicals Archives - The National Law Forum

U.S. EPA Finalizes Designation of Two PFAS Chemicals as Hazardous Substances Under CERCLA

On April 19, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its long-awaited final rule designating perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), including their salts and structural isomers, as “hazardous substances” under Section 102(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”) (the “Final Rule”). The designation, which takes effect 60 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register, will provide expanded investigation and remediation authority to EPA, will provide a powerful tool for private actions under CERCLA, and will trigger additional release reporting requirements. It will also expand enforcement authority in states that regulate CERCLA-designated hazardous substances.

Hazardous Substance Designation of PFOA and PFOS Has Broad Implications for Cleanups and CERCLA Liability

PFOA and PFOS are two specific chemical compounds within a broad group of thousands of manmade chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). EPA focused its regulatory efforts on these two PFAS; however, the vast majority of PFAS remain unregulated under CERCLA even after issuance of the Final Rule.

Designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances triggers numerous requirements. The primary impact of the Final Rule is that it incorporates PFOS and PFOA into CERCLA’s strict, joint and several liability framework. This change grants EPA the power to investigate releases of PFOA and PFOS and compel potentially responsible parties (PRPs), including owners and operators of a property or facility, to remediate releases of PFOA and PFOS through the specific CERCLA enforcement provisions. PRPs also now have a clear private right of action under CERCLA to pursue cost recovery and contribution actions. Additionally, when the Final Rule becomes effective, facilities will be required to immediately report releases of PFOA and PFOS above their designated “reportable quantities,” (currently one pound within a 24-hour period), to the National Response Center and relevant state or tribal authorities.

Furthermore, many states include CERCLA hazardous substances under their cleanup statutes, meaning these states will now be able to require remediation of PFOA and PFOS under state law.

Listing PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA does not make PFOA or PFOS contaminated waste a “hazardous waste” or a “hazardous constituent” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. However, this designation does require the U.S. Department of Transportation to designate PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous materials” for purposes of transport under the Hazardous Materials Regulations.

While the PFOA and PFOS CERCLA Listing is Final, Questions Remain

As noted in our prior article on the proposed rule, EPA’s designation of PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” leaves several questions unanswered.

How will EPA’s CERCLA enforcement discretion policy really play out in practice?
Concurrently with the publication of the Final Rule, EPA also released a PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy under CERCLA. This enforcement policy captures EPA’s current position that it does not intend to pursue PRPs under circumstances where “equitable factors” do not support doing so. Enumerated circumstances in the policy include so-called “passive receivers” of PFAS, including community water systems and publicly-owned treatment works, publicly-owned municipal solid waste landfills, publicly-owned airports and local fire departments, and farms where PFAS-containing biosolids are applied to the land. However, EPA’s enforcement policy—which is not binding upon the agency and is subject to change at any time—should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism among regulated industries, considering the sheer breadth of potential CERCLA liability for these substances, as well as continued Congressional proposals to codify exemptions for passive receivers within the CERCLA statute itself. Notably, the agency’s enforcement position does not in any way prevent private parties from initiating cost recovery or contribution actions under CERCLA.
How will regulated industries manage the costs of PFOA and PFOS cleanup?PFAS contamination can be wide-ranging due to several factors unique to the chemicals themselves. Further, unlike remediation technologies for other well-studied contaminants, existing remediation technologies for PFOA and PFOS are nascent at best and are expensive at a large scale. It is therefore often difficult to even estimate accurate cost ranges for PFOA and PFOS cleanups, but costs can easily run into the millions of dollars at complex sites. Although EPA has published interim guidance on PFOA and PFOS disposal methods, and the recently passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides $3.5 billion over five years for Superfund cleanups, the methods and money may not go as far as planned if cleanup costs for PFOA and PFOS sites end up exponentially higher.
How will EPA handle potential PFOA and PFOS contamination at closed Superfund sites?In response to comments seeking clarification on whether designating PFOA and PFOS will lead to the reopening of closed Superfund sites, EPA stated that the final rule “has no impact” on EPA’s authority to list PFOA and PFOS sites as Superfund sites. EPA’s question-and-answers page—which we note is not a binding statement from the agency—also states that “[d]esignation will not change EPA’s process for listing and/or deleting [National Priorities List (NPL)] sites or evaluating remedies’ protectiveness through five-year reviews, and it will not require PFOA and PFOS sampling at NPL (final or deleted) sites.” While the final rule does not require PFOA and PFOS sampling at closed sites, it does not prevent EPA from ordering sampling at these sites. PRPs who may have long ago stopped budgeting for remedial costs at existing or legacy locations that were remediated years and even decades ago, may find that they are required to revisit these sites where PFOA and PFOS may be present.
What cleanup standards will govern PFOA and PFOS remediation?There is a current patchwork of state regulatory standards relating to PFAS, ranging from binding cleanup levels, advisory guidance, or no PFAS standards at all, which may lead to similarly patchwork cleanup standards depending on which standards are applied as an appropriate “applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement” (ARAR) at a specific site. In addition, on April 10, 2024, EPA issued a final rule setting Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water at 4.0 parts per trillion (ppt), individually. While these drinking water standards are separate from EPA’s final rule listing PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA, the “hazardous substances” rule notes that the MCL may be an appropriate ARAR for cleanup efforts under CERCLA.
What other PFAS will EPA next target under CERCLA?As noted above, PFOA and PFOS are two specific PFAS among thousands of others currently and historically used. Much of the science on the potential health effects of PFAS (both individual chemical compounds and as a class) continues to evolve. In the meantime, EPA has moved to regulate additional types of PFAS under other statutes. For example, as we noted in a previous client alert, EPA recently published a proposed rule listing seven other PFAS compounds as hazardous constituents under RCRA. Some or all of these PFAS may eventually be targets of future CERCLA rulemaking efforts.

Next Steps

The Final Rule will take effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. Affected parties should consider their portfolio of planned, active, and in some cases, closed remediation sites for potential implications, and companies may consider reviewing and updating their hazardous substance reporting and transportation protocols to address PFOA and PFOS as applicable.

EPA Designates Two PFAS as Hazardous Substances

On April 19, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it was designating two common per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund. As expected, EPA is issuing a final rule to designate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances. The pre-publication version of the rule is available here.

Once the rule is effective, entities will be required to report releases of PFOA and PFOS into the environment that meet or exceed the reportable quantity. Reporting past releases is not required if the releases have ceased as of the effective date of the rule. EPA will have the authority to order potentially responsible parties to test, remediate, or pay for the cleanup of sites contaminated with PFOA or PFOS under CERCLA.

Massachusetts established reportable concentrations for six PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS, in 2019. The Massachusetts regulations also contain cleanup standards for PFAS contamination in soil and groundwater.

Under Maine law, these substances also are automatically deemed a Maine hazardous substance regulated under the Maine Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Sites Law. Maine’s PFAS screening levels are available here.

Solid waste facility operators had expressed serious concerns about the prospect of PFOA and PFOS being listed as hazardous substances under CERCLA and have advocated for a narrow exemption. Landfills can be recipients of PFAS-containing waste without knowing it. Similarly, wastewater treatment plant operators feared liability and increased costs if the rule designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances became final.

EPA’s announcement of the final rule came with a CERCLA enforcement discretion policy [PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy Under CERCLA] that makes clear that EPA will focus enforcement on parties that significantly contributed to the release of PFAS into the environment.

The policy states that the EPA does not intend to pursue certain publicly‑owned facilities such as solid waste landfills, wastewater treatment plants, airports, and local fire departments, as well as farms where biosolids are applied to the land. Firefighting foam (aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF) is known to contain PFAS, and runoff from the use of AFFF has been known to migrate into soil and groundwater.

Curb Your Pollution: EPA Issues Final Rule to Reduce Toxic Air Pollution

EPA Issues Final Rule to Reduce Toxic Air Pollution from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and the Polymers and Resins Industries

On April 9, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its final rule that is touted to provide critical health protections to hundreds of thousands of people living near chemical plants. The final rule, signed March 28, 2024, will reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants, including the toxic chemicals chloroprene and ethylene oxide (EtO). The rule implements sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act.

When fully implemented, the final rule will reduce more than 6,200 tons a year of over 100 air toxics – including EtO and chloroprene – from covered equipment and processes at plants in Texas and Louisiana, along with plants in other parts of the country including Delaware, New Jersey, and the Ohio River Valley.

As part of the final rule, the EPA is also issuing new emissions limits for dioxins and furans. This will reduce more than 23,000 tons of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) each year.

EPA’s final rule will also require plants to conduct fenceline monitoring if any of the equipment or processes covered by the rule use, produce, store, or emit EtO, chloroprene, benzene, 1,3- butadiene, ethylene dichloride or vinyl chloride. Fenceline monitoring is used to measure levels of pollution in the air around the perimeter of a facility. The fenceline monitoring provisions of the rule require owners and operators to ensure that levels of these six pollutants remain below a specified “action level.” Fenceline monitoring provides owners and operators the flexibility to determine what measures to take to remain below the action level, while ensuring that they are effectively controlling toxic air pollution.

The final rule will significantly reduce emissions of air toxins, especially those that are potentially harmful for surrounding communities. According to the EPA, these emission reductions will yield significant reductions in lifetime cancer risk attributable to these air pollutants, in addition to other health benefits.

EPA Issues Final Rulemaking on Clean Water Act Hazardous Substance Facility Response Plans

Key Takeaways

What Is Happening? On March 14, 2024, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a final rule requiring certain facilities to develop Facility Response Plans (FRPs) for a potential worst-case discharge of Clean Water Act (CWA) hazardous substances, including planning for the threat of a worst-case discharge. Existing EPA regulations require FRPs where certain thresholds of oil are exceeded; the new rule extends the FRP requirement to cover CWA hazardous substances, among other changes. The rule takes effect on May 28, 2024, and has a 36-month implementation period. We anticipate challenges to the rule, but unless a court issues a stay, affected facilities should plan to implement the rule’s new requirements in this timeframe.
Who Is Impacted? Affected industries include many industrial and commercial sectors and facilities that handle hazardous substances at or above current reportable quantity thresholds. These may include manufacturing and chemical plants and storage operations located near navigable waters that have an inventory of CWA-listed hazardous substances at or above threshold amounts. Facilities associated with oil and gas extraction, mining, construction, utilities, crop production, animal production and aquaculture, and support activities for agriculture and forestry, among others, could also be affected.
What Should I Do? Facility owners and operators potentially affected by the rule should assess whether they are subject to the rule and then begin developing their facility response plans.

The rule requires Facility Response Plans for worst-case discharges of CWA hazardous substances from onshore non-transportation-related facilities that, because of their location, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging into or on the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or exclusive economic zone. Facilities already subject to requirements for Spill Prevention, Control Countermeasure Plans, or FRPs for oil under 40 CFR Part 112 should anticipate that they will fall within the scope of the new rule and plan for compliance.

Background

The final rule is EPA’s response to the settlement of a 2019 lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council and others. The lawsuit asserted that EPA failed to meet its statutory duty to issue regulations “requiring non-transportation-related substantial-harm facilities to plan, prevent, mitigate and respond to worst-case spills of hazardous substances.”

The Consent Decree required EPA to take final action on a rule addressing worst-case discharge plans for hazardous substances by September 2022. This final action represents EPA’s final action under the consent decree.

Applicability Criteria

EPA set forth a two-step process to determine whether the new rule applies to a facility. See 40 CFR 118.3. Specifically, the owner or operator of a covered facility must assess two screening criteria and, if both criteria are met, then assess the ability of the facility to cause substantial harm to the environment through the application of the substantial harm criteria. If an owner or operator determines that the covered facility meets one of the substantial harm criteria, the owner or operator must prepare a hazardous substance FRP in accordance with the new regulations.

Initial Screening. These screening criteria are to be assessed concurrently, with no implied order of priority:
1. Facility has a maximum quantity onsite of 1,000x the Reportable Quantity of CWA Hazardous Substances. The RQs published in 40 CFR Part 117 are based on a level of release of a hazardous substance that could potentially cause harm to waters. EPA’s decision to set the threshold criteria at 1000x rather than the initially proposed 10,000x the RQ represents a potentially significant expansion of the scope of the new rule.
2. Facility is within 0.5 miles of navigable water or conveyance to navigable water.

If a facility meets the two screening criteria, it must undergo an evaluation to determine whether it meets the substantial harm criteria.

Substantial Harm Criteria. If the two screening criteria are met, the next step is a substantial harm evaluation, which includes determining whether the facility meets one of the following four substantial harm criteria:
1. Ability to adversely impact public water system.
2. Ability to cause injury to fish, wildlife, and sensitive environments.
3. Ability to cause injury to public receptors.
4. Has experienced a reportable discharge of CWA hazardous substances that reached navigable water within the last five years.

These criteria are easily triggered under the FRP process for oil, which preexisted the new rule. For instance, an “injury” means any measurable adverse change, either long- or short-term, in the chemical or physical quality or the viability of a natural resource resulting either directly or indirectly from exposure to a discharge or exposure to a product of reactions resulting from a discharge. 40 CFR 112.2.

If both screening criteria and one or more substantial harm criteria apply, the facility must prepare and submit an FRP to EPA that includes information on each CWA hazardous substance above the threshold quantity onsite. The owner or operator must assess all substantial harm criteria.

Amendments from the Proposed Rule

In the final rule, the Agency determined that a 1,000x RQ multiplier, instead of the proposed 10,000x, will more appropriately screen for covered facilities that could cause substantial harm to the environment from a worst-case discharge. In response to comments, EPA indicated that the screening criteria, in conjunction with the substantial harm criteria, will appropriately target covered facilities that could cause substantial harm to the environment from a worst-case discharge of a CWA hazardous substance into or on the navigable waters. This change in scope from the proposed rule will likely significantly broaden the number of locations that must now complete the new assessment process for CWA hazardous substances.
As the basis for assessing risk to the environment, the new rule requires the use of the volume by the maximum quantity onsite inventory of hazardous substances above RQs, rather than the maximum onsite container capacity. EPA made this change in the final rule based on its view that this approach will more accurately reflect the hazard posed and is consistent with how oil is measured and regulated.
Once a facility determines it meets one of the substantial harm criteria, the owner or operator must now develop an FRP for all, not just one, of the CWA hazardous substances onsite above the threshold quantity. EPA made this adjustment by recognizing that the response and/or recovery actions may vary widely depending on which substance is released. Thus, the FRP must include information on each hazardous substance onsite that is above the threshold quantity.
EPA added § 118.4(a)(6) to the final rule, which requires a covered facility owner or operator to review and recertify their plan Agency every five years. EPA decided that this will ensure the FRPs remain up-to-date and owners or operators remain informed of their responsibilities. This requirement is consistent with oil FRP requirements.
EPA also added § 118.4(a)(7), requiring a facility owner or operator to evaluate or re-evaluate operations whenever EPA adds or removes a CWA hazardous substance from the list at 40 CFR 116.4 or adjusts relevant RQs as found in 40 CFR 117.3. EPA reasoned that such adjustments are made through a formal notice and comment rulemaking procedure; thus, regulated entities will have notice of these changes prior to them becoming final and effective.

Implementation and Enforcement

Facility Response Plan preparation, submission, and implementation timelines are subject to the effective date and an initial 36-month implementation period. EPA included this implementation period to allow covered facilities time to familiarize themselves with the rule requirements and prepare their plans.

Initially-regulated covered facilities. The owner or operator of a non-transportation-related onshore facility in operation on November 30, 2026, that satisfies the applicability criteria must implement the requirements of the new regulations by June 1, 2027.
Newly-regulated covered facilities. The owner or operator of a non-transportation-related onshore facility in operation after November 30, 2026, that satisfies the applicability criteria must comply within six months.
Newly-constructed covered facilities. Covered facilities starting operations after June 1, 2027, must comply prior to the start of operations, including a 60-day start-up period adjustment phase.

Appeals

Similar to current regulations for Oil FRPs, a facility that believes it is not subject to the new rule may appeal a decision by the EPA Regional Administrator determining the potential or threat of substantial harm or significant and substantial harm from a facility or, in the case of an FRP that has been prepared, the Regional Administrator’s disapproval of a CWA hazardous substance FRP. If warranted, that decision can then be appealed to the EPA Administrator.

Petitions

The public and other government agencies may also petition EPA to determine whether a CWA hazardous substance-covered facility should be required to submit an FRP to EPA. Given the breadth of the new rule relative to the long list of hazardous substances and the 1000x RQ threshold, this public participation opportunity is a significant consideration for facilities that may already be under community scrutiny for other reasons.

California PFAS Ban in Products: 6th Largest Global Economy Enters the Fray

We reported extensively on the landmark legislation passed in Maine in 2021 and Minnesota in 2023, which were at the time the most far-reaching PFAS ban in the United States. Other states, including Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have subsequently introduced legislation similar to Maine and Minnesota’s regulations. While we have long predicted that the so-called “all PFAS / all products” legislative bans will become the trend at the state levels, it is significant to note that California, the world’s sixth largest economy, recently introduced a similar proposed PFAS ban for consumer products.

The California proposed legislation, coupled with the existing legislation passed or on the table, will have enormous impacts on companies doing business in or with the state of California, as well as on likely future consumer goods personal injury lawsuits. The California PFAS ban must therefore not be overlooked in companies’ compliance and product development departments.

California PFAS Ban

California’s SB 903 in its current form would prohibit for sale (or offering for sale) any products that contain intentionally added PFAS. A “product” is defined as “an item manufactured, assembled, packaged, or otherwise prepared for sale in California, including, but not limited to, its components, sold or distributed for personal, residential, commercial, or industrial use, including for use in making other products.” It further defines “component” as “an identifiable ingredient, part, or piece of a product, regardless of whether the manufacturer of the product is the manufacturer of the component.”

While the effective date of SB 903’s prohibition would be January 1, 2030, the bill gives the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) the authority to prohibit intentionally added PFAS in a product before the 2030 effective date. It also allows DTSC to categorize PFAS in a product as an “unavoidable use”, thereby effectively creating an exemption to the bill’s ban, although California exemption would be limited to five years in duration. Similar carve outs were also included in the Maine and Minnesota bans. In each instance, certain information must be provided to the state to obtain an “unavoidable use” exemption. In California, an “unavoidable use” exemption would only be granted if:

There are no safer alternatives to PFAS that are reasonably available.
The function provided by PFAS in the product is necessary for the product to work.
The use of PFAS in the product is critical for health, safety, or the functioning of society.

If a company sells a products containing PFAS in the state of California in violation of the proposed law, companies would be assessed a $1,000 per day penalty for each violation, a maximum of $2,500 per day for repeat offenders, and face possible Court-ordered prohibition of sales for violating products.

Implications To Businesses From The Minnesota PFAS Legislation

First and foremost of concern to companies is the compliance aspect of the California law. The state continues to modify and refine key definitions of the regulation, resulting in companies needing to consider the wording implications on their reporting requirements. In addition, some companies find themselves encountering supply chain disclosure issues that will impact reporting to the state of California, which raises the concern of accuracy of reporting by companies. Companies and industries are also very concerned that the information that is being gathered will provide a legacy repository of valuable information for plaintiffs’ attorneys who file future products liability lawsuits for personal injury, not only in the state of California, but in any state in which the same products were sold.

It is of the utmost importance for businesses along the whole supply chain to evaluate their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate these compounds. One major point of contention among members of various industries is whether to regulate PFAS as a class or as individual compounds. While each PFAS compound has a unique chemical makeup and impacts the environment and the human body in different ways, some groups argue PFAS should be regulated together as a class because they interact with each other in the body, thereby resulting in a collective impact. Other groups argue that the individual compounds are too diverse and that regulating them as a class would be over restrictive for some chemicals and not restrictive enough for others.

Companies should remain informed so they do not get caught off guard. Regulators at both the state and federal level are setting drinking water standards and notice requirements of varying stringency, and states are increasingly passing PFAS product bills that differ in scope. For any manufacturers, especially those who sell goods interstate, it is important to understand how those various standards will impact them, whether PFAS is regulated as individual compounds or as a class. Conducting regular self-audits for possible exposure to PFAS risk and potential regulatory violations can result in long term savings for companies and should be commonplace in their own risk assessment.

EU to Ban Carbon Offset Claims Entirely?

Responding to pressure from activists who have argued that “[c]arbon neutral claims are greenwashing, plain and simple,” the European Parliament and Council have reached a provisional agreement to ban all carbon-neutral claims in member states. If the Parliament approves the deal, member states will have 24 months to enact legislation to implement it. So, a new set of laws could become effective in 2026. Corporations will have some lead time to come into compliance.

The EU provisional agreement, if made final, will be the latest blow to carbon neutrality claims and is particularly unfortunate in not distinguishing between credible and non-credible offsets. This could also hurt voluntary carbon markets, which have been jarred by the recent demise of the giant, offset-producing African Kariba Project.

Commentators have also speculated that the EU Parliament and Council action is an effort to “put a thumb on the scales” of the FTC Green Guides revision process, currently underway in the United States. If the FTC were to follow suit, carbon reforestation projects worldwide could be jeopardized. Of course, the FTC is bound by the First Amendment and would be reluctant to “ban” a statement. However, it could erect onerous substantiation and disclosure requirements that render such claims much more difficult to make.

The ill-fated Kariba Project has become an unfortunate bellwether for carbon neutrality claims based on credits generated from reforestation or forest preservation. The episode may say more about financial speculation in carbon markets than it does about the science of reforestation. Replanting trees is a surefire way to sequester carbon – at least for a while – and financial incentives to do so should be encouraged, not discouraged.

These realities aside, the clear upshot is that carbon neutrality claims are increasingly under attack by activists who seemingly lump all carbon offsets together as “harmful” – whether generated by reforestation, carbon capture, or voluntary carbon reduction. That’s too bad, as any credible financial incentive to remove carbon from the atmosphere should be encouraged, if not financially incentivized. The role of independent certifiers is to ensure that the carbon offsets are real and not overstated. A flat ban seems counterproductive to environmental protection and greenhouse gas reduction.

The sad reality is that many companies will begin to migrate away from reliance on carbon offsetting. It is simply becoming too risky. Meanwhile, voluntary carbon trading markets will suffer greatly, and a crucial green development mechanism will be lost.

The sad reality is that many companies will begin to migrate away from reliance on carbon offsetting. It is simply becoming too risky.

Consumer Fraud PFAS Lawsuits Update: Two Cases Dismissed

On several instances, we have written regarding consumer fraud PFAS class action lawsuits filed in several states. The number of product types targeted for these lawsuits are growing and diverse in terms of the industries targeted. While there has been at least one significant settlement in these lawsuits to date, recently two of the lawsuits that we previously reported on related to PFAS consumer fraud allegations were dismissed by separate courts.

While it is too early to say that these dismissals are a preview of a coming trend in the litigation, the rulings at least provide companies with assurance that there are defenses available in these cases. Nevertheless, with the number of consumer fraud lawsuits likely to continue increasing for the time being, consumer goods industries, insurers, and investment companies interested in the consumer goods vertical must pay careful attention to these lawsuits.

Consumer Fraud PFAS Lawsuits – Overview

The consumer fraud PFAS lawsuits filed to date follow a very similar pattern: various plaintiffs bringing suit on behalf of a proposed class allege that companies market consumer goods as safe, healthy, environmentally friendly, etc., or that the companies themselves market their corporate practices as such, yet it is allegedly discovered that certain products marketed with these buzzwords contain PFAS. The lawsuits allege that since certain PFAS may be harmful to human health and PFAS are biopersistent (and therefore environmentally unfriendly), the companies making the good engaged in fraud against consumers to entice them to purchase the products in question.

In the Complaints, plaintiffs typically allege the following counts:

Violation of state consumer protection laws and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Violations of various state consumer protection laws
Breach of warranty
Fraud
Constructive fraud
Unjust enrichment

The plaintiffs seek certification of nationwide class action lawsuits, with a subclass defined as consumers in the state in which the lawsuits are filed. In addition, the lawsuits seeks damages, fees, costs, and a jury trial. Representative industries and cases that have recently been filed include:

Cosmetics industry:
- Brown v. Cover Girl, New York (April 1, 2022)
- Anderson v. Almay, New York (April 1, 2022)
- Rebecca Vega v. L’Oreal, New Jersey (April 8, 2022)
- Spindel v. Burt’s Bees, California (March 25, 2022)
- Hicks and Vargas v. L’Oreal, New York (March 9, 2022)
- Davenport v. L’Oreal, California (February 22, 2022)
Food packaging industry:
- Richburg v. Conagra Brands, Illinois (May 6, 2022)
- Ruiz v. Conagra Brands, Illinois (May 6, 2022)
- Hamman v. Cava Group, California (April 27, 2022)
- Azman Hussain v. Burger King, California (April 11, 2022)
- Little v. NatureStar, California (April 8, 2022)
- Larry Clark v. McDonald’s, Illinois (March 28, 2022)
Food and drink products:
- Bedson v. Biosteel, New York (January 27, 2023)
- Lorenz v. Coca-Cola, New York (December 28, 2022)
- Toribio v. Kraft Heinz, Illinois (November 29, 2022)
Apparel products:
- Krakauer v. REI, Washington (October 28, 2022)
Hygiene products:
- Esquibel v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., New York (January 27, 2023)
- Dalewitz v. Proctor & Gamble, New York (August 26, 2022)
Feminine hygiene products:
- Gemma Rivera v. Knix Wear Inc., California (April 4, 2022)
- Blenis v. Thinx, Inc., Massachusetts (June 18, 2021)
- Destini Canan v. Thinx Inc., California (November 12, 2020)

Recent Rulings In Consumer Fraud PFAS Cases

In California, the Yeraldinne Solis v. CoverGirl Cosmetics et al. case made allegations that cosmetics were marketed as safe and sustainable, yet were found to contain PFAS. The defendants in the lawsuit filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing in relevant part that the plaintiff had no standing to file the lawsuit because she did not sufficiently allege that she suffered any economic harm from purchasing the product. The plaintiff put forth two theories to counter this argument: (1) the “benefit of the bargain” theory, under which the plaintiff alleged that she bargained for a product that was “safe”, but received the opposite. The court dismissed this argument because the product packaging did not market the product as safe, and the ingredient list explicitly named the type of PFAS found in testing; and (2) an overpayment theory, under which plaintiff alleged that if she knew the product contained PFAS, she would not have paid as much for it as she did. The Court dismissed this argument because the product packaging specifically listed the type of PFAS at issue in the case.

In Illinois, the Richburg v. Conagra Brands, Inc. alleged that popcorn packaging was marketed as containing “only real ingredients” and ingredients from “natural sources”, yet the popcorn contained PFAS (likely from the packaging itself), which was allegedly false and misleading to consumers. The defendant moved to dismiss the lawsuit on several grounds and the Court found in defendant’s favor on one important ground. The Court held that the statements on the popcorn packaging would not mislead an ordinary and reasonable consumer because a consumer would understand “ingredients” to mean those items that are required to be disclosed by the FDA and not materials that may have migrated to the food from the product packaging. In fact, the Court ruled that the FDA “exempts substances migrating to food from equipment or packaging;” and those “do not need to be included in the ingredients list.” The defendant argued that reasonable consumers would not consider PFAS to be an “ingredient” under this regime. In other words, whether or not PFAS migrated into the popcorn, the representations that the popcorn contained “only real ingredients” and “100% ingredients from natural sources” were “correct as a matter of law.” The court dismissed plaintiffs claims on this basis.

Conclusion

Several major companies now find themselves embroiled in litigation focused on PFAS false advertising, consumer protection violations, and deceptive statements made in marketing and ESG reports. The lawsuits may well serve as test cases for plaintiffs’ bar to determine whether similar lawsuits will be successful in any (or all) of the fifty states in this country. Companies must consider the possibility of needing to defend lawsuits involving plaintiffs in all fifty states for products that contain PFAS. It should be noted that these lawsuits would only touch on the marketing, advertising, ESG reporting, and consumer protection type of issues. Separate products lawsuits could follow that take direct aim at obtaining damages for personal injury for plaintiffs from consumer products. In addition, environmental pollution lawsuits could seek damage for diminution of property value, cleanup costs, and PFAS filtration systems if drinking water cleanup is required.

While the above rulings are encouraging for companies facing consumer fraud PFAS lawsuits, it is far too early to tell if the trend will continue nationally. Different courts apply legal standards differently and these cases are very fact specific, which could lead to differing results.

It is of the utmost importance that businesses along the whole supply chain in the consumer products industry evaluate their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate PFAS at an ever-increasing pace. Similarly, state level EPA enforcement action is increasing at a several-fold rate every year. Now, the first wave of lawsuits take direct aim at the consumer products industry. Companies that did not manufacture PFAS, but merely utilized PFAS in their manufacturing processes, are therefore becoming targets of costly enforcement actions at rates that continue to multiply year over year. Lawsuits are also filed monthly by citizens or municipalities against companies that are increasingly not PFAS chemical manufacturers.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

President Biden’s FY 2024 Budget Includes Additional Funding for TSCA and Funding to Address PFAS Pollution

On March 9, 2023, President Biden released his fiscal year (FY) 2024 budget. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) March 9, 2023, press release, the budget requests over $12 billion in discretionary budget authority for EPA in FY 2024, a $1.9 billion or 19 percent increase from the FY 2023 enacted level. Highlights of the FY 2024 budget include:

Ensuring Safety of Chemicals for People and the Environment: The budget provides an investment of $130 million, $49 million more than the 2023 enacted level, to build core capacity to implement the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Under TSCA, EPA has a responsibility to ensure the safety of chemicals in or entering commerce. According to EPA, in FY 2024, it “will focus on evaluating, assessing, and managing risks from exposure to new and existing industrial chemicals to advance human health protection in our communities.” EPA states that “[a]nother priority is to implement [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)] to ensure pesticides pose no unreasonable risks to human health and the environment.”
Tackling Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Pollution: The budget provides approximately $170 million to combat PFAS pollution. This request allows EPA to continue working toward commitments made under EPA’s 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap, including: increasing its knowledge of PFAS impacts on human health and ecological effects; restricting use to prevent PFAS from entering the air, land, and water; and remediating PFAS that have been released into the environment.

EPA states that it will release the full Congressional Justification and Budget in Brief materials “soon.”

Article By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Click here for more environmental legal news from the National Law Review.

EPA Updates TSCA Inventory, Plans Next Update in Summer 2023

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on February 16, 2023, that the latest Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory is now available on its website. The TSCA Inventory is a list of all existing chemical substances manufactured, processed, or imported in the United States. According to EPA, this update to the public TSCA Inventory is part of its biannual posting of non-confidential Inventory data. EPA plans the next regular update of the TSCA Inventory for summer 2023.

EPA states that the TSCA Inventory contains 86,685 chemicals, of which 42,170 are active in U.S. commerce. Other updates to the Inventory include new commercial activity data, unique identifier data, and regulatory flags (e.g., significant new use rules and test orders). EPA notes that additionally, several hundred substances are now listed with their specific chemical identities after having been moved from the confidential portion of the Inventory to the public portion as part of EPA’s TSCA confidential business information (CBI) review efforts.

Lastly, EPA reminds TSCA submitters to check regularly for any correspondence relating to their submissions in EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). EPA states that it sends “critical and time-sensitive information regarding confidentiality claims through CDX, and failing to open this correspondence can delay the Agency’s processing of those claims.”

Article By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Canadian PFAS Drinking Water Standards Proposed

We have documented for several years now the U.S. EPA’s efforts to propose enforceable drinking water standards with respect to PFAS, and in September 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) issues its own draft “PFOS and PFOS In Drinking-Water” Background Document. Now, on the heels of these developments, Canadian PFAS drinking water standards were introduced, which add another regulatory layer to the globally evolving PFAS regulatory scheme. Notably, Canada takes a different approach than both the United States and the WHO in addressing PFAS drinking water issues, but the proposal will nonetheless have impacts on U.S. PFAS litigation if passed.

Canadian PFAS Drinking Water Standards

Canada’s draft proposal sets a limit of 30 ppt for any detected PFAS combined in a given drinking water source. This is in contrast to the WHO, which only addressed PFOA and PFOS in its draft recommendations for drinking water standards, and the EPA, which by all indications will only propose enforceable drinking water standards for a small subset of the over 12,000 PFAS that exist. The Canadian standards, though, do propose requiring that EPA Testing Methods 533 or 537.1 be used for detection, which only tests for 29 PFAS types. Nevertheless, the large group approach to PFAS drinking water standards is unique for the moment to Canada, although the WHO did include in its proposal a similar limited subset of PFAS for countries to consider when setting or proposing drinking water standards.

Comments to the Canadian draft document are being accepted through April 12, 2023.

EPA’s Drinking Water Actions

We previously detailed how, on June 15, 2022, the EPA issued Health Advisories (HAs) for five specific PFAS, PFOA (interim), PFOS (interim), PFBS (final) and GenX (final). While not enforceable levels for PFAS in drinking water, the EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories are nevertheless incredibly significant for a variety of reasons, including influence on future federal and state drinking water limits, as well as potential impacts on future PFAS litigation.

The levels set by the EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories were as follows:

PFOA	.004 ppt
PFOS	.02 ppt
GenX	10 ppt
PFBS	2,000 ppt

Since the HAs were published, the EPA has faced several lawsuits challenging the HAs. The lawsuits generally allege that the HAs should be struck down and are not valid, as they were created “arbitrarily and capriciously.” In support, the moving parties say that the HAs were created in an improper manner because (1) they incorporated toxicity assumptions that deviate from the EPA’s own standard methods; and (2) EPA incorporated grossly incorrect and overstated exposure assumptions―in essence, EPA used the wrong chemical when making its exposure assumptions, thereby resulting in a significantly less tolerant health advisory for [PFAS] than is warranted by the data. In addition, the parties argue that the EPA failed to go through the necessary public comment period before issuing its final GenX HA, and that in creating the GenX HA, the EPA exceeded its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Canadian PFAS Impacts On EPA Efforts and Litigation

When the WHO PFAS report was released, we wrote that the report will have an impact on existing and future litigation that challenges EPA regulatory actions focused on PFAS. Our reasoning for the prediction was that the standards proposed by the WHO were significantly higher than the EPA’s Health Advisories (which may foreshadow where the EPA’s enforceable drinking water limits will be set) even though the WHO had available to it much of the same scientific literature as the EPA. The Canadian PFAS drinking water proposal of 30 ppt is also higher than the EPA’s Health Advisories and what many predict will be the EPA’s proposed enforceable drinking water limit. Future legal arguments challenging the EPA will likely say that the EPA is acting by ignoring the science and putting politics over the merits of scientific endeavor.

Nevertheless, whether the arguments challenging the EPA are found to be meritorious in litigation or not, the Canadian report will certainly provide ammunition to parties looking to challenge EPA action.

Conclusion

Now more than ever, the EPA is clearly on a path to regulate PFAS contamination in the country’s water, land and air. The EPA has also for the first time publicly stated when they expect such regulations to be enacted. These regulations will require states to act, as well (and some states may still enact stronger regulations than the EPA). Both the federal and the state level regulations will impact businesses and industries of many kinds, even if their contribution to drinking water contamination issues may seem on the surface to be de minimus. In states that already have PFAS drinking water standards enacted, businesses and property owners have already seen local environmental agencies scrutinize possible sources of PFAS pollution much more closely than ever before, which has resulted in unexpected costs. Beyond drinking water, though, the EPA PFAS Roadmap shows the EPA’s desire to take regulatory action well beyond just drinking water, and companies absolutely must begin preparing now for regulatory actions that will have significant financial impacts down the road.

For more Environmental Law News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Category: Chemicals

U.S. EPA Finalizes Designation of Two PFAS Chemicals as Hazardous Substances Under CERCLA

Hazardous Substance Designation of PFOA and PFOS Has Broad Implications for Cleanups and CERCLA Liability