Tag: Environmental Law

PFAS Water Cleanup…Have You Bought Yourself a Multi-Million Dollar Superfund Issue?

The last two years have seen an incredible uptick in activity with respect to PFAS regulations, and media coverage of PFAS continues to fuel the fires from the public, non-government organizations and environmental groups for additional action to be taken. The EPA continues its process of determining Maximum Contaminant Levels for PFAS. The FDA is examining the ways that it might regulate PFAS levels in both food and food packaging. Meanwhile, states, bombarded with constituent outcries and under pressure to take action to fill the gap until the EPA and FDA finish their regulatory review processes, quickly enact drinking water limits for PFAS and ban PFAS-containing products, such as children’s toys and food packaging.

As states continue setting drinking water limits for PFAS and in preparation for the EPA’s final determination of a Maximum Contaminant Level for PFAS in drinking water, many water utilities are beginning to evaluate the steps needed to come into compliance with existing or anticipated water regulations. Comprehensive compliance programs are being created and costly well testing sites are being built to determine PFAS content at various points along the waterways for drinking water sources. At water treatment facilities, expensive water filtration systems are being installed to remove as many PFAS as possible from drinking water sources. With water utilities coming under fire in the litigation world for PFAS issues, these steps may curtail the short-term issues and costs associated with PFAS litigation.

However, the long-term impact of the remediation steps that water treatment facilities ae taking may only be pushing litigation costs further down the road, not eliminating them. In addition, little considered Superfund laws may be triggered through PFAS water filtration that could end up costing water treatment facilities tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs.

CERCLA and PFAS

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), once a substance is designated as “hazardous” by the EPA, the Act gives the EPA considerable power to designate sites containing such substances as Superfund sites and force parties responsible for the pollution to pay for the cleanup of the site. Without a designation of a substance as “hazardous” (and therefore a site as a Superfund site), the EPA may either pay for the cleanup of the site itself or attempt to pursue, through time-consuming and costly litigation, the property owner for the costs of cleanup.

One of the most closely watched developments in the PFAS world is whether the EPA will make the determination that PFAS are “hazardous” under CERCLA. Although the EPA has promised its determination soon and various lawmakers are pressuring the EPA to make a determination in the near future, it is still uncertain as to when the EPA will issue its final regulations.

In the meantime, however, water utilities are under increasing pressure to filter out PFAS from drinking water. These PFAS are typically deposited in landfills. Out of sight, out of mind? Not exactly, when it comes to PFAS. As the quantity of PFAS accumulate in landfills, if the EPA makes a determination that PFAS are “hazardous” substances under CERCLA, the EPA could immediately designate landfills full of PFAS as Superfund sites and take action to pursue parties to pay for the cleanup. Water utilities could therefore be at significant risk of having to pay for Superfund site cleanup.

Further, in some instances, water utilities may have previously been involved with Superfund site cleanup for other reasons and believed the site issues to be fully remediated.  However, since PFAS have not yet been classified as “hazardous”, Superfund sites were never tested for PFAS. Should the EPA determined that PFAS are “hazardous” under CERCLA, the EPA will have the right to reopen previously closed Superfund sites for further testing and remediation specific to PFAS, even if parties deemed responsible for the pollution already paid millions of dollars to clean up the site for other contaminants.

Water utilities in particular must pay special attention to PFAS developments under CERCLA. Proactive planning is needed to determine alternate means of disposing of or eliminating PFAS from water sources. Failure to enact forward-thinking strategies may very well end up costing water utility companies tens of millions in unexpected and unwanted costs if they fail to do so.

©2020 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE BY John Gardella at CMBG3 Law.

President Trump Orders Expanded Use of Emergency Powers to Streamline Infrastructure

On Thursday, June 4, 2020, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) on “Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities.” Relying on the COVID-19 declared national emergency, the EO directs federal agencies to invoke their existing emergency authorities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and other laws to expedite economic recovery, including taking “all reasonable measures” to speed infrastructure and public works projects. While consistent with prior administrative directives to expedite project permitting, this latest EO likely will have little practical effect on individual projects and generate increased litigation for projects that rely on it.

The EO aspires to expedite a variety of projects that fall under the jurisdiction of several specific federal agencies:

  • All authorized and appropriated highway and other infrastructure projects within the authority of the U.S. Department of Transportation;
  • All authorized and appropriated civil works projects under the purview of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
  • All authorized and appropriated infrastructure, energy, environmental, and natural resources projects on federal lands managed by the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture.

The EO’s main action item is periodic reporting by affected federal agencies to the White House. Agency heads must provide a summary report listing all projects expedited under their emergency authorities no later than July 4th (30 days after the EO’s issuance date), and provide status reports every 30 days thereafter. The EO specifies no end date for the national emergency or use of emergency authorities.

The EO principally relies on the government-wide NEPA regulation for emergency situations.  40 C.F.R. § 1506.11. It also invokes the ESA implementing regulation on Section 7 consultations in emergencies (50 C.F.R. § 402.05 2) and the CWA Section 404 regulations and nationwide permits addressing emergency circumstances. Lastly, the EO directs agencies to review “other authorities” potentially applicable to emergencies, including “all statutes, regulations, and guidance documents that may provide for emergency or expedited treatment (including waivers, exemptions, or other streamlining).”  Overall, the EO intends to allow critical infrastructure and public works projects to move forward more quickly, by abbreviating or waiving legally required environmental reviews, interagency consultation, and public comment.

While the goals of reducing time and paperwork are laudable, the EO will likely be less impactful than other recent efforts (such as One Federal Decision). The emergency exemptions available under NEPA, the ESA, the CWA, and other laws are quite limited pursuant to regulations and case law. They are meant for very narrow or discrete circumstances, not for indefinite national conditions. Moreover, they do not entirely or permanently waive environmental requirements, but rather allow for deferred or alternative procedures that achieve statutory aims. For example, the NEPA emergency regulation provides that when emergency circumstances make it necessary to take actions with significant environmental impacts without observing the typical NEPA process, agencies may consult with the Council on Environmental Quality to make “alternative arrangements” to take such actions. The effort and resources required to develop such “alternative arrangements” may not save time in the overall NEPA review. Nor can an EO legally displace regulations or case law.

Predictably, environmental organizations have already indicated a likely forthcoming challenge to the EO. Though a direct challenge may face jurisdictional obstacles, individual project approvals relying on the EO may be more vulnerable to lawsuits. And given the EO’s focus on timing, preliminary injunction motions at the commencement of lawsuits likely would be a centerpiece of those lawsuits, which likely would offset any advantage that may have been gained from relying on the EO.

© 2020 Beveridge & Diamond PC

Waters of the United States Litigation: Practical Considerations for the Regulated Community

A familiar list of states[1] are suing the Trump administration for revising the “waters of the United States” definition that is used to create the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) regulatory programs. The lawsuit is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  California v. Andrew Wheeler, Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-03005.  There is also a predicable list of the other states[2] in the litigation supporting the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule:  Definition of the United States” promulgated on April 21, 2020.  85 Fed. Reg. 22,250. While we await the impact of litigation and ruling on the request for a stay, the rule becomes effective on June 22, 2020.

The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in this litigation provides a road map for the legal and regulatory challenges ahead for the regulated community and agencies implementing CWA programs that rely on the definition for “Waters of the United States” aka WOTUS.  The following provides insights as to how to support a strong CWA with the new WOTUS definition.

Upset of Existing Regulatory Programs.  Challenging states/cities express concern over regulation of discharges to WOTUS (NPDES), water quality standards (TMDLs), 401 certifications (NWPs), and control of oil spills (SPCC) as the result of the new WOTUS definition.  These are the programs that are relied upon by the regulated community to operate, maintain compliance, and develop new facilities.

Those seeking CWA permits/authorizations pursuant to the new WOTUS rule should consider enhancing their public submittals with documentation supporting policy decisions as protective of WOTUS uses.  Voluntary reports, studies and data demonstrating protections and regulatory successes, in addition to routine reporting and recordkeeping, would be constructive in building confidence in the program changes and in defending against regulatory and statutory challenges.

Too Narrow a Definition.  Challengers assert the new definition for WOTUS is narrow and excludes “waters long understood as within CWA’s protections.”  They assert that ephemeral streams and many wetlands are excluded.  The multi-step deliberative process that the former WOTUS regulatory program embraced resulted in the unfortunate inability to make timely decisions about regulatory authorizations.  The tangible impact of the clarity of the new definition is the ability to engage in thoughtful analysis and decide how best to manage WOTUS protections.

In support of the clarity found in the new WOTUS rule, there is a need to demonstrate that the definition promotes the Clean Water Act mission.  The regulated community needs to support the development of objective assessments that demonstrate this point to help educate about the effectiveness of the definition in meeting the CWS objective to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”

Rapanos “Significant Nexus” Concurrence.   Challengers assert the U.S. Supreme Court Rapanos decision that sets forth Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” concurrence should have been maintained in the definition, rather than implement the plurality opinion as was done in the new WOTUS definition.

The WOTUS rule of 2020 notes that “Since Rapanos, litigation has continued to confuse the regulatory landscape. See, e.g., ECOS Memorandum at 2-23. The Supreme Court also has twice weighed in on topics related to the agencies’ implementation of their authorities under the CWA to help clarify federal authority in this area. In each case, members of the Court noted the longstanding confusion regarding the scope of federal jurisdiction under the CWA and the importance of providing clear guidance to the regulated community.” 85 Fed. Reg. 22,250, 22,257.

The CWA becomes a statute unable to move if its programs are not capable of implementation, as the “significant nexus” analysis demonstrated.  The regulated community can facilitate this issue by working with all stakeholders to develop in the near-term reports and analyses about the measurable successes of the WOTUS definition rule.

Neighbor Jurisdiction Impacts.  Challengers express concern about jurisdictions upstream that may not be as protective of water adversely impacting downstream jurisdictions.  They assert a need for a national floor for protecting water to avoid adverse impacts on downstream states.

The regulated community has a shared interest with the challengers in a CWA regulatory program that is dependable and has reliable outcomes.  The difference in perspective is the challengers do not have confidence in states’ abilities to protect their waters, although all states are required to demonstrate effective CWA programs to the federal agencies.  The regulated community needs to work in partnership with the state and federal agencies to support successful outcomes to refute the fear that downstream jurisdictions must be concerned.

Flow in a typical year.  A tributary, lake, pond, or impoundment must contribute flow in a “typical year” directly to traditional navigable waters (e.g., through other tributaries, lakes, ponds, impoundments or adjacent wetlands).  Tributaries must be either perennial (continuously flowing all year round) or intermittent (continuously flowing during certain times of the year and not just in response to precipitation).  The challengers assert the definition for typical year is not well articulated. “Typical year” is defined to mean “when precipitation and other climatic variables are within the normal periodic range (e.g., seasonally, annually) for the geographic area of the applicable aquatic resource based on a rolling thirty-year period.” The 2020 Rule does not identify which “other climatic variables” should be considered, or what is the “geographic area of the applicable aquatic resource.”

The challengers share with everyone a distaste for vague outcomes, a common human sentiment.  The previous WOTUS rule encompassed a myriad of steps embedded with complexities that defied any reliable or predictable outcome.  The need to define “typical year” to create a comprehensible result falls well within the acknowledged need for common sense policy.

Excluded Waters.  The challengers assert that the WOTUS definition excludes:  ephemeral waters (those flowing only in direct response to precipitation) and their adjacent wetlands, “interstate” waters as a separate category of the “waters of the United States,” and therefore excludes many waters that cross state borders;  and many wetlands that are near other jurisdictional waters but lack a physical or surface hydrological connection to them.

All stakeholders need an operable method to delineate a definition for WOTUS for the purpose of applying the CWA programs.  Objecting to a program that is unclear is a valid concern when working to promote a sustainable Clean Water Act.  Working against regulatory clarity seems misguided.  Leadership is welcomed in educating about sustainable regulation as opposed to stalled regulation.

[1] The following states have sued EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers over the recent definition for “waters of the United States.”  Plaintiffs are:  California, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Virginia, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, the District of Columbia, and the City of New York.

[2] Intervenors for the Defendant Federal Agencies include:  Pacific Legal Foundation, Georgia, Wyoming, Alabama, Texas, Indiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia.

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.
For more on Waters of the United States, see the National Law Review Environmental Energy & Resources law section.

NEPA’s Rebirth?

The administration has long viewed the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as a stumbling block for major federal projects, including energy, infrastructure, pipelines, permitted actions, etc. After 50 years, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is proposing to limit NEPA reviews. See 85 F.R. 1684 (1/10/2020). CEQ’s regulations have in the past been entitled to deference by courts.

Agency NEPA reviews entail: categorical exclusion for minor projects, environmental assessments (EAs) for less than significant impact projects, and/or full blown environmental impact statement (EISs) for major projects with significant impacts on the human environment. Project impacts and alternatives, including no action, are to be considered by an agency. NEPA requires environmental impact disclosure yet does not require a wise agency environmental decision. The NEPA process has allegedly been exploited by interest groups in courts for delay of projects.

The CEQ’s proposed new NEPA rules will basically make its prior NEPA guidance obsolete. However, CEQ’s prior greenhouse gas guidance remains an issue for these rules or for future guidance. These proposals narrow NEPA, for example, environmental consequences are to be direct and causally related and reasonably foreseeable rather than indirect or cumulative; alternatives are to be within an agency’s authority and feasible for project goals, and many alternatives can be eliminated from detailed study; EAs are generally to be no longer than 75 pages and take no more than one year; and EISs are to generally to be no longer than 150 pages and take no more than two years.

The proposed rules mention administrative stays of actions and also de-emphasize remedies like court injunctions. They also suggest that bonds may be needed for any injunctive relief, and add that irreparable injury is not to be presumed for NEPA violations.

Comments are due on or before March 10, 2020 to CEQ at https://www.regulations.gov.

Docket # CEQ-2019-0003.

© 2020 Jones Walker LLP

Congress Tackles PFAS on Multiple Fronts

With the enactment of the PFAS Act of 2019 and related provisions in December, opposing forces in Congress came together to force regulatory action on several different aspects of per- and poly-fluorinated substances (PFAS). Issues on which agreement was not reached are now before the Senate in House-passed legislation. While the PFAS debate continues in Congress, federal agencies are now tasked with multiple obligations related to PFAS. Companies that handle PFAS will have added PFAS reporting obligations under both the Toxics Release Inventory and the Toxic Substances Control Act.

The PFAS Act of 2019 is title LXXIII of the massive National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA), Public Law 116-92 (Dec. 20, 2019). This alert summarizes its six subtitles, as well as other PFAS provisions in the NDAA related to the Department of Defense (DOD). It then provides a preview of future legislative developments.

PFAS Act of 2019 Provisions

Subtitle A – Drinking Water Monitoring

EPA must include certain PFAS and classes of PFAS in the fifth Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5), expected later this year. EPA’s PFAS Action Plan (Feb. 2019) had called for EPA to take this action, but Subtitle A requires it to do so. EPA had included six PFAS in UCMR 3.

The PFAS to be included are all PFAS and classes of PFAS for which EPA has a validated test method for drinking water and that are not subject to a national primary drinking water standard under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA has a validated test method for 18 PFAS, which it adopted in 2009 and expanded in 2018, EPA Method 537.1. The PFAS Action Plan had predicted additional test methods in 2019, but this did not occur.

The SDWA limits the number of unregulated contaminants that may be included in each UCMR to 30, but the NDAA excludes the listed PFAS from that limit.

Subtitle A also provides grant eligibility through the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds to address PFAS.

Subtitle B – Toxics Release Inventory

EPA’s PFAS Action Plan had set as a long-term action exploring data availability for listing some PFAS as toxic chemicals for purposes of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). EPA had begun that lengthy process with an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, published on December 4, 2019.

The NDAA disrupted this process later that month. By its terms, Subtitle B automatically added multiple PFAS to the TRI list as of January 1, 2020, and others will be automatically added as certain milestones are reached. EPA posted a list of 160 PFAS that were added as of January 1, 2020. The reporting threshold for all of the chemicals is set at 100 pounds unless revised by EPA within the next 5 years. Reporting on these 160 PFAS will be due by July 1, 2021.

Future automatic additions to the TRI list (as of January 1 of the following year) are mandated whenever:

  • EPA finalizes a toxicity value for a PFAS. (EPA has a provisional peer-reviewed toxicity value for PFBS, adopted in 2014.) Toxicity values are used in risk assessments under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
  • EPA finalizes a significant new use rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for a PFAS or class of PFAS.
  • EPA adds a PFAS or class of PFAS to an existing SNUR.
  • EPA designates a PFAS or class of PFAS as active on the TSCA Inventory.

In addition, over the next two years, EPA must determine whether certain listed PFAS meet any of the listing criteria in section 313. If so, EPA must add them to the TRI list within two years of making that determination.

These additions to the TRI list are subject to the provision that, if any PFAS chemical identity is claimed confidential, the PFAS is not added to the list until EPA reviews a substantiation of that claim. If EPA upholds the claim, that PFAS must be added to the list in a manner that does not disclose its identity (such as through a generic name).

Subtitle C – USGS Performance Standard and Sampling

Subtitle C directs the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to coordinate with EPA to develop an appropriate testing methodology for PFAS that is “as sensitive as is feasible and practicable,” with the ability to detect as many “highly fluorinated compounds” as possible. Highly fluorinated compounds are defined to mean PFAS with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. USGS must also develop quality assurance and quality control measures to ensure accurate sampling and testing, as well as a training program.

In addition, USGS must carry out nationwide sampling for PFAS. The nationwide sampling program must start with drinking water near locations with known or suspected sources of PFAS. Later stages of sampling will be based on an evaluation by USGS in consultation with the states and EPA to determine where sampling should occur, with an emphasis on direct human exposure through drinking water. The results of the sampling must be sent to EPA and, upon request, the states. In addition, USGS must prepare a report and submit it to certain committees and members of Congress.

EPA’s PFAS Action Plan called for EPA to collaborate with USGS, the Army Corps of Engineers, and universities to lead the science of PFAS.

Subtitle D – Emerging Contaminants

Subtitle D encourages research into “emerging contaminants,” defined broadly to include any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in water for which there is no national primary drinking water standard and that may have an adverse impact on the health of individuals. It mandates several actions to improve the level of technical understanding as well as support for states.

First, EPA, in collaboration with states and other stakeholders, must establish a strategic plan for improving existing federal efforts to identify, monitor, and assist in the development of treatment systems for emerging contaminants and to assist states in responding to human health risks posed by such contaminants.

Second, Subtitle D requires the establishment of a Working Group within 180 days of enactment to coordinate federal activities identifying and analyzing public health effects of emerging contaminants in drinking water. The Working Group will be comprised of representatives from several federal entities, including EPA, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, USGS, and others in the discretion of EPA.

Third, it requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish the National Emerging Contaminant Research Initiative within 180 days of enactment. The goal will be improving the identification, analysis, monitoring, and treatment methods for emerging contaminants, including identifying priority emerging contaminants for research emphasis. Within one year after establishing the research initiative, involved agencies must issue solicitations for grant proposals for research projects consistent with that strategy.

Finally, Subtitle D requires EPA to study the actions it can take to increase technical assistance and support to states with respect to drinking water in emerging contaminants and issue a report to Congress within 18 months. Based on the findings in that report, EPA must develop a program to provide technical assistance to states within three years of enactment. When evaluating applications submitted by states seeking assistance, EPA must give priority to states with affected areas, primarily in financially distressed communities. Emergency assistance may be provided without application. EPA must also establish and maintain a database of available resources developed to assist states with testing for emerging contaminants and make it available to states and stakeholder groups with a scientific or material interest, such as drinking water utilities. The database must be searchable and available through the EPA website.

Subtitle E – TSCA Provisions

Subtitle E requires EPA to take two actions regarding TSCA – finalize amendments to two SNURs for certain PFAS substances by June 22, 2020, and issue a final rule by January 1, 2023, requiring manufacturers of PFAS to report detailed information about their PFAS.

The two PFAS SNURs and the effect of Subtitle E on EPA’s timetable for finalizing them are discussed in another Beveridge & Diamond alert, available here.

Subtitle E also amends TSCA § 8(a) so as to direct EPA to issue a final rule that would require each person who has manufactured a PFAS in any year since 2011 to submit a report that includes, for each year since 2011, detailed information on that PFAS. EPA must issue the rule by January 1, 2023.

The information that a PFAS manufacturer must provide includes, for each such PFAS:

  • Its common or trade name, chemical identity, and molecular structure.
  • Its categories or proposed categories of use.
  • The total amount manufactured or processed, reasonable estimates of the total amount to be manufactured or processed, the amount manufactured or processed for each of its categories of use, and reasonable estimates of the amount to be manufactured or processed for each of its categories of use or proposed categories of use.
  • A description of the byproducts resulting from its manufacture, processing, use, or disposal.
  • All existing information concerning its environmental and health effects.
  • The number of individuals exposed to it, and reasonable estimates of the number who will be exposed to it in their places of employment and the duration of such exposure.
  • The manner or method of its disposal.

Subtitle F – Guidance on Disposal; Research

EPA must publish interim guidance on the destruction and disposal of PFAS within one year of enactment. The guidance must address aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), soil and biosolids, textiles (other than consumer goods) treated with PFAS, spent water treatment equipment, landfill leachate containing PFAS, and waste streams from facilities manufacturing or using PFAS. EPA must publish revisions at least every three years.

EPA’s Office of Research and Development must examine the effects of PFAS on human health and the environment and make that information public It must also develop a process for prioritizing PFAS and classes of PFAS for additional research. A total of $15 million per year for each of the next five years is authorized for appropriation for this research.

DOD-Related PFAS Provisions of the NDAA

The National Defense Authorization Act includes several PFAS provisions in Title III, related to DOD operations and maintenance at military bases. AFFF containing PFAS, used for putting out fires, is the subject of several provisions. These include prohibiting the uncontrolled release of AFFF containing PFAS, with limited exceptions for emergency response as well as incineration requirements for the disposal of AFFF that must meet the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The use of PFAS AFFF must be phased out by October 1, 2024, and the use of PFAS in packaging for meals ready-to-eat (MREs) must end by October 1, 2021. There are also provisions for information sharing with municipal drinking water utilities located adjacent to military installations.

Additional PFAS Legislation

During the conference to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the NDAA, the House managers pushed for additional PFAS provisions, but the two sides did not reach agreement on those provisions. On January 10, 2020, the House passed a revised H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019, with the votes of 24 Republicans, and sent it to the Senate for its consideration. Senate passage is probably unlikely, particularly in light of the rejection by Senate conferees on the NDAA of some of these provisions.

As revised, H.R. 535 would require a number of regulatory actions on PFAS, including:

  • A requirement that EPA designate PFOA, PFOS, and their salts as hazardous substances under CERCLA § 102(a) within one year of enactment, and determine within five years of enactment whether to designate additional PFAS as hazardous substances.
  • An amendment to TSCA § 4 directing EPA to adopt a rule requiring comprehensive toxicity testing on all PFAS, with a proposed test rule due six months after enactment and a final rule due two years after enactment.
  • An amendment to TSCA § 5 eliminating exemptions for PFAS (such as those for R&D, impurities, and the low-volume exemption).
  • An amendment to TSCA § 5 providing that, for five years after enactment, all PFAS that are the subject of premanufacture notices or significant new use notices are deemed to present an unreasonable risk. EPA would be required to issue orders to prohibit all manufacture, processing, and distribution of those PFAS.
  • An amendment to SDWA § 1412(b) directing EPA to promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for PFAS (including at last PFOA and PFOS) within two years of enactment. It would also require EPA to publish a health advisory for a PFAS not subject to a national primary drinking water regulation within one year of a finalized PFAS toxicity value or effective quality control and testing procedure for a PFAS, whichever is later.
  • A provision that EPA may not impose a financial penalty for violation of a PFAS national primary drinking water regulation until five years after its adoption.
  • An amendment to the SDWA requiring EPA to establish a program to award grants to affected community water systems.
  • A requirement that EPA adopt a final rule adding PFOA, PFOS, and their salts to the list of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act § 112(b) within six months of enactment, and to determine within five years of enactment whether to issue final rules adding other PFAS to that list.
  • An amendment of RCRA § 3004 to prohibit unsafe incineration of PFAS.
  • A requirement that EPA revise the Safer Choice Standard of the Safer Choice Program within one year of enactment to identify requirements for certain consumer products to meet to be labeled with a Safer Choice label, including a requirement that they not contain any PFAS.
  • A requirement that EPA issue guidance on minimizing the use of AFFF and related equipment containing PFAS within one year of enactment.
  • A requirement that EPA investigate methods and means to prevent contamination of surface waters by GenX.
  • A prohibition of introducing PFAS pollutants to a treatment works under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) without first notifying the treatment works of the identity and quantity of each PFAS; whether the PFAS is susceptible to treatment by the treatment works; and whether the PFAS would interfere with the treatment works.
  • A requirement that EPA establish a website containing information on the testing of household well water within one year of enactment.
  • A requirement that EPA develop a risk-communication strategy to inform the public about potential hazards of PFAS.
  • A requirement that EPA publish a plan under FWPCA § 304(m) by September 30, 2021, that contains the results of a review of the introduction into treatment works or discharge of PFAS from categories of point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works). Based on that results of that review, EPA would be required to initiate as soon as practicable the process for adding certain PFAS to the list of toxic pollutants under FWPCA § 307(a), and within two years of publication of the plan to publish human health water quality criteria for other PFAS. EPA would also be required to adopt human health water quality criteria for PFOA, PFOS, and their salts within two years of enactment for each priority industry category, and to adopt a final rule within four years of enactment establishing effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for those PFAS for each priority industry category.

The White House announced on January 7, 2020, that it strongly opposes H.R. 535 and that President Trump’s senior advisors may recommend the bill be vetoed if passed by both Houses.

© 2020 Beveridge & Diamond PC

For more on PFAS regulation, see the Environmental, Energy & Resource section of the National Law Review.

NEPA Overhaul? CEQ Proposes Significant Changes to Federal Environmental Review

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a division of the Executive Office of the President, today published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would make significant changes to its regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

CEQ’s efforts spring from a 2017 Executive Order that directed it to “enhance and modernize the Federal environmental review and authorization process” by, among other initiatives, ensuring “that agencies apply NEPA in a manner that reduces unnecessary burdens and delays as much as possible, including by using CEQ’s authority to interpret NEPA to simplify and accelerate the NEPA review process.”  Today’s publication, the first comprehensive update of the CEQ NEPA regulations since their promulgation in 1978, proposes noteworthy reductions in the scope of and timeline for federal environmental review.

Key proposed changes include:

  • Limiting the scope of the NEPA review.  CEQ proposes to exclude from NEPA review non-federal projects with minimal federal funding or minimal federal involvement such that the agency cannot control the outcome on the project, reasoning that “[i]n such circumstances, there is no practical reason for an agency to conduct a NEPA analysis because the agency could not influence the outcome of its action to address the effects of the project.”  The impact of this change on privately-funded (i.e., non-federal) projects is unclear, however, because major federal actions subject to NEPA review under the proposed rule include “actions approved by permit or other regulatory decision as well as Federal and federally assisted activities.”
  • Eliminating cumulative impact analyses.  CEQ proposes to change how to address cumulative impacts, such that analysis of cumulative effects is not required under NEPA, finding that “categorizing and determining the geographic and temporal scope of such effects has been difficult and can divert agencies from focusing their time and resources on the most significant effects,” and “can lead to encyclopedic documents that include information that is irrelevant or inconsequential to the decision-making process.”
  • Requesting comments on GHGs.  The effect that elimination of cumulative impact analyses will have on NEPA review of the greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of a proposed project is unclear.  Just last summer, in its proposed draft guidance on how NEPA analyses should address GHG emissions, “Draft National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” CEQ stated that “the potential effects of GHG emissions are inherently a global cumulative effect.” CEQ has invited comment on this issue, noting that if it finalizes its proposed rulemaking, it would review the draft GHG guidance for potential revisions consistent with the regulations.
  • Establishing time limits of two years for completion of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and one year for completion of Environmental Assessments.  Currently, the average time for federal agencies to complete an EIS is four and a half years.  A two-year presumptive time limit, measured from the date of the issuance of the notice of intent to the date a record of decision is signed, would bring the majority of EISs within the timeline achieved by only a quarter of EISs prepared over the last decade, according to the CEQ’s report on EIS Timelines.

Because the rulemaking proposes sweeping changes to NEPA, these changes likely will be challenged in court.  Nevertheless, the changes are indicative of a federal push to reduce the scope and time of environmental review, particularly related to highway and energy infrastructure projects.  In an op-ed piece, CEQ Chairwoman Mary B. Neumayr stated that the proposed changes “would modernize, simplify, and accelerate the NEPA process in order to promote public involvement, increase transparency, and enhance the participation of states, tribes, and localities. These changes would also reduce unnecessary burdens and delays and would make important clarifications to improve the decision-making process.”

Public comments are due March 10, 2020.  CEQ will host two public hearings on the proposed rule: in Denver, CO, on February 11, 2020 and in Washington, DC, on February 25, 2020.

©2020 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.

More from The Council on Environmental Quality in the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources legal articles’ section.

Sustainability: Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)

Understanding the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues of today’s business world are key to understanding the discussion of sustainability and climate change (a sub-topic of each ESG and sustainability).  For example, a sustainable business that demonstrates strong ESG planning, will often include climate change risk management.

Today’s press informs that mounting pressure from the United Nations participants continues to build a focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  The UN’s 25th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was held in Madrid from December 2 – 13.  The U.S. filed a notification of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on November 4, 2019.  The U.S. State Department has announced it will continue to participate in ongoing climate change negotiations and meetings, such as COP25, to ensure a level playing filed that protects U.S. interests.  Also, the UN released its report noting the emissions gap they observe that demonstrates the difference between amounts of carbon dioxide emitted now and lower levels predicted as necessary to stop global warming.  The question being asked is whether there are missed opportunities to achieve GHG reduction goals.

Domestic and international companies are in the process of reviewing their ESG reports to assess last year’s accomplishments and in setting goals and action items for the new year of 2020 and beyond.  Climate change and other sustainability concerns like waste management are clearly on the minds of many.  There is no single formula for a well-developed ESG strategy and report, since each is as unique as the individual company about which the report speaks.  There are common ESG themes, however.  The UN Sustainability Goals provide a convenient list of well-refined issues against which a company (or individual) can assess their opportunities and vulnerabilities.  The goals set forth a number of environmental, social, and governance topics worthy of note to include: poverty, hunger, good health, education, gender equality, clean water, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry/innovation/infrastructure, reduced inequality, sustainable cities/communities, responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below water, peace and justice, and partnership to achieve the goal.  These are the types of issues to consider when exploring ESG and sustainability.  Consultation of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) can also assist.  Keep in mind that there is no one gold standard metric against which to measure ESG ratings or accomplishments.  The reason for that is simple, each company has a different complement of skills, talents, and opportunities or stated differently, ESG risks and solutions.

If you were to review a few ESG reports found on corporate websites, it will become apparent the differences and unique qualities of each reporting company.  Geographic locations of operations can define the ESG goals.  If operating in major metropolitan cities as opposed to emerging countries, the corporate responsibilities are quite varied.  If manufacturing consumer products, packaging is an attractive target for reduction in waste.  However, if manufacturing items used in the value chain, perhaps an ESG goal is managed through energy consumption during manufacturing or delivery of products.  If providing medical services, the ESG goals can be energy, water, supply chain, waste, etc.  Just as each of us possess capabilities and assets we can use to invest in our future, the same is true for companies.  We must acknowledge the unique accomplishments and actively invite the benefits gained from a collective effort.

The final item listed by the UN Sustainability goals is partnership, meaning the efforts and benefits should be shared.  We all must work together to achieve the change we need.  All contributions must be welcomed to build the sense of common good.

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

For more on global sustainability efforts, see the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources Law section.

Ruling in First CWA Case to Rely on EPA’s Interpretive Statement on Groundwater Releases

On November 26, a federal district court judge in Massachusetts held that releases of pollutants reaching surface waters through groundwater do not require permits under the Clean Water Act (CWA), “irrespective of any hydrological connection to navigable waters.” Conservation Law Foundation Inc. v. Longwood Venues and Destinations Inc. et al., 1:18-cv-11821. The decision comes less than three weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, in which the justices have been asked to decide whether the CWA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirement applies to releases that traverse nonpoint sources—like groundwater—before entering navigable waters.

In 2018, a citizen suit was filed against the owners of the Wychmere Beach Club claiming that the Beach Club’s wastewater treatment facility (in particular, the facility’s 22 leach pits located near the shoreline) discharged nitrogen into the groundwater and subsequently into Wychmere Harbor, a navigable water located off Cape Cod. The complaint accused the Beach Club of violating the CWA by discharging pollutants into the harbor and failing to obtain a federal permit for these releases. The Beach Club argued that it was not liable under the CWA because it released nitrogen into groundwater, rather than directly into the harbor, and that such a release is not covered by the CWA.

Unlike the decisions from the Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits that have addressed this issue, Longwood is the first case to rely on the April 2019 Interpretive Statement in which EPA concluded that releases traversing groundwater are categorically excluded from the requirement to obtain an NPDES permit. The court concluded that the CWA is ambiguous on the question of whether the statute requires permits for releases that reach surface waters via groundwater. The court then deferred to EPA’s Interpretive Statement under Chevron Step Two after concluding that EPA reasonably decided to exclude releases through groundwater from the NPDES program.

Citing the resultant ambiguity from dueling CWA directives; namely, that the federal government has jurisdiction over the waters of the United States while the states are primarily tasked with groundwater regulation, the court turned to EPA’s April 2019 interpretation of the statute to answer the question of whether – and to what extent – the CWA applies to releases into groundwater that carries pollutants into navigable waters. Finding the agency’s analysis reasonable, the court deferred to EPA’s conclusion that releases of pollutants into groundwater do not constitute point source discharges subject to the NPDES program or permitting requirements.

Until the Supreme Court issues a decision in Maui (expected before the end of June 2020), courts and regulated entities will continue to search for guidance on how the CWA applies to mediated releases of pollutants to surface waters. The Longwood decision’s approach—relying on EPA’s recent guidance—applies only to groundwater and offers no comfort to litigants in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.

© 2019 Beveridge & Diamond PC

More on the Clean Water Act can be found in the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources Law area.

Federal Judge Limits the Reach of the WOTUS Rule

Introduction

During the Obama Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (collectively, “the Agencies”) adopted a rule amending the regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” (the “WOTUS Rule” or “Rule”).  As explained in a previous alert, the WOTUS Rule has far-reaching implications for project development and landowners across the energy, water, agricultural, construction, and transportation sectors, and it has been the subject of extensive litigation, as well as rulemaking by the Trump Administration.

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia ruled in Georgia v. Wheeler that the WOTUS Rule impermissibly extended the Agencies’ authority beyond the scope of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The Court remanded the WOTUS Rule back to the Agencies and extended its preliminary injunction of the Rule.

Background

Since its enactment, the WOTUS Rule has been the subject of many legal challenges, and it was enjoined in numerous states. Additionally, under the Trump Administration, the Agencies proposed a new rule that would have delayed the effectiveness date of the WOTUS Rule for two years (the “Suspension Rule”). As previously discussed, the Suspension Rule was the subject of a nationwide injunction in South Caroline Coastal Conservation League v. Pruitt.  A federal judge in the Western District of Washington then vacated the Suspension Rule in Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. Wheeler.

After the vacatur of the Suspension Rule, the WOTUS Rule continued to provide fodder for litigation. To date, the WOTUS rule is enjoined in 27 states: Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Wisconsin.  The Rule remains effective in 22 other states and the District of Columbia.

The Opinion

In Georgia v. Wheeler, the Court—relying primarily on Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Rapanos v. United States—held that the WOTUS Rule impermissibly extended the Agencies’ jurisdiction beyond their delegated authority under the CWA.

The Court also held that the Agencies’ definitions of interstate waters, tributaries, adjacent waters, and case-by-case waters violated the CWA, and that the Rule significantly interfered with lands and waters that were traditionally under state authority without clear congressional intent.

Additionally, the Court determined that the Rule failed to comply with the APA both procedurally and substantively. These topics are further discussed below.

Definition of Interstate Waters

The Court found that the definition of interstate waters, which considers all interstate waters to be a “water of the United States” irrespective of navigability, disregarded the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rapanos. In particular, the Court found that WOTUS reads the term “navigability” out of the CWA. As such, under the WOTUS Rule, a non-navigable interstate water with no significant nexus to a “water of the United States” would still be regulated. According to the Court, that result extends beyond the Agencies’ authority under the CWA.

Definition of Tributaries

The Court also concluded that the Rule’s definition of “tributaries” was over-inclusive because it used the presence of an ordinary high water mark (“OHWM”) and bed and banks as physical indicators of volume sufficient to create a regulated “tributary.”  The Court took particular issue with provisions in the WOTUS Rule discussing situations in which these physical indicators are “absent in the field,” but are nevertheless determined to be present by “other appropriate means,” such as “lake and stream gage data, elevation data, spillway height, historic water flow records, flood predictions, statistical evidence, the use of reference conditions, or through . . . remote sensing and desktop tools.”  The Court found this approach inconsistent with Justice Kennedy’s concurrence, noting that “the physical indicators that the Agencies assert provide evidence of sufficient volume and flow to adhere to Justice Kennedy’s significant-nexus test need not actually be physically present in a geographic area so long as computer programs can decipher that they exist and need not presently exist so long as those programs can conclude that they have existed at sometime in the past.”

The Court was also troubled by the application of the “tributaries” definition in the Arid West, citing evidence that the physical indicators of a tributary often appear around water bodies in the Arid West, even when they are wholly isolated from navigable waters. The Court found that the definition of tributaries could inadvertently regulate dry areas that may contain attributes of an OWHM and a bed and bank due to an extreme weather event—a result that Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Rapanos sought to avoid. Accordingly, Court concluded that the “tributaries” definition extended too far.

Definition of Adjacent Waters

According to the Court, the definition of “adjacent waters” clearly conflicted with Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Rapanos by erroneously including waters adjacent to non-navigable tributaries. The Court recognized that, while adjacency is a permissible factor to consider when determining jurisdiction under the CWA, that factor must still be subject to Kennedy’s significant-nexus test.  The Court reasoned that the definition impermissibly extended jurisdiction over isolated and inconsequential waters.

Case-by-Case Waters

The Court presumed that the case-by-case category was the Agencies’ attempt to implement Justice Kennedy’s significant-nexus test. Because the Agencies relied on impermissible definitions of “interstate waters” and “tributaries” in formulating their criteria for the case-by-case category of waters, the criteria were also invalid to the extent they were the logical outgrowth of these definitions. Because the definitions of “interstate waters” and “tributaries” were already overbroad, the Agencies could not base case-by-case category waters of those definitions, as they too would impermissibly expand federal jurisdiction. Notably, the Court concluded that the Agencies’ reliance on erroneous definitions of “tributaries” and “interstate waters” was the only error in the WOTUS Rule’s case-by-case category under the CWA.

The WOTUS Rule Substantially Interferes with Traditional State Power

The Court also found that the Rule substantially encroached on traditional state power. Recognizing that the CWA permits the federal government to regulate waters in order to protect the biological and physical integrity of the Nation’s waters, the Court also emphasized the Congressional policy in the CWA stating that states should retain primary responsibility over land and water resources. The Court found that the WOTUS Rule as written would result in the federal government regulating immense stretches of intrastate land not contemplated by that CWA.  To support this finding, the Court cited statements made by the Agencies under the Trump Administration in a recently-proposed rule to rescind the WOTUS Rule that the WOTUS Rule “may have altered the balance of authorities between the federal and State governments, contrary to the agencies’ [prior] statements,” and to statistics suggesting the WOTUS rule was estimated to increase the scope of federal jurisdiction over waters by at least two percent — an increase the Court characterized as “a substantial intrusion into lands and waters traditionally left to state authority.” According to the Court, this significant increase in jurisdiction improperly stripped states of their traditional authority to regulate these types of lands and waters.

The Rule failed to comply with APA and was arbitrary and capricious

The Court found that the rule violated the APA in two ways: (1) the final Rule was not the logical outgrowth of the Agencies’ previously-proposed version of the Rule; and, (2) there were parts of the Rule that were arbitrary and capricious. The Rule failed to be the logical outgrowth of the Agencies’ proposed rule for three reasons. First, while the proposed Rule did not include distance limitations when defining “neighboring waters,” the final Rule did. Second, the proposed Rule similarly did not include distance limitations for adjacent waters in the case-by-case categories, while the final Rule did. Lastly, the proposed Rule did not contain any explicit farming exemption, but the final Rule contained a farming exemption for adjacent waters. The Court agreed with Plaintiffs’ argument that, had they known that there was going to be a farming exemption for adjacent waters, they would have also commented that there should be a farming exemption for tributaries.

The Court also determined that portions of the Rule were arbitrary and capricious. The Court found that the Agencies’ inclusion of a farming exemption for adjacent waters but not tributaries was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to treat similar cases in a similar manner without justification. The Court also found that the Agencies’ decision to use FEMA 100-year floodplain maps to define adjacent and case-by-case waters was arbitrary because of the inaccuracies of outdated flood maps, and because the Agencies failed to sufficiently explain why the 100-year floodplain was the proper limit. Lastly, the Agencies’ use of a distance limitation for adjacent waters was arbitrary because the Agencies only gave broad, conclusory reasons why the limit was selected and failed to explain their decision.

Practical Implications

Georgia v. Wheeler represents yet another federal court to examine the merits of the WOTUS Rule and to find it exceeding the Agencies’ statutory authority under the CWA and violating provisions of the APA.  The Court did not vacate the rule, but simply remanded it back to the Agencies, and therefore the Rule remains effective where not enjoined. This case continues the patchwork implementation of the WOTUS Rule, which is now enjoined in 27 states, but is still effective in 22 other states and the District of Columbia.

This patchwork situation may not last long, as appeals will likely be filed challenging the Georgia v. Wheeler decision and other decisions enjoining or declining to enjoin the WOTUS Rule. Additionally, the Agencies under the Trump Administration are expected in the near future to publish a final version of their proposed new WOTUS Rule, which is also very likely to face legal challenges.

As a result on the ongoing litigation and rulemaking processes, the regulated community is unlikely to see true certainty on the question of the geographic scope of the CWA until Congress takes action to clarify its scope or the Supreme Court issues a new substantive decision addressing this issue.

© 2019 Van Ness Feldman LLP

PFAS — What’s all the Fuss?

Recently, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been the subject of much publicity, major ongoing litigation over alleged personal injury and property damage, and statutory and regulatory action. In Massachusetts and New Hampshire, contamination incidents, lawsuits, and concerns over drinking water impacts have led to proposals for adoption of extremely low (parts per trillion) drinking water guidelines or enforceable standards. Nationally, although there are drinking water “advisories,” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering whether to start rulemaking to identify PFAS as “hazardous substances” under the federal Superfund law, and whether to adopt enforceable maximum contaminant levels as national drinking water standards.

What’s all the fuss? Although manufacturers stopped making two of the most well-known PFAS (PFOA and PFOS) over a decade ago, PFAS are a category of substances that includes hundreds of compounds, and a number of them appear to have toxic effects. PFAS had – and continue to have – a variety of uses in a multitude of products, and therefore have been manufactured or used (and sometimes released) at a large number of facilities. Commercial products have included, among others, cookware, food packaging, personal care products, and stain resistant chemicals for apparel and carpets. Industrial and commercial uses included photo imaging, metal plating, semiconductor coatings, firefighting aqueous film-forming foam, car wash solutions, and rubber and plastics. As a result, PFAS are present in the environment, and have been detected in certain drinking water systems. Further, PFAS are still being manufactured and used, but discharge of PFAS in air and water typically have not been regulated. PFAS also are highly mobile and highly persistent in the environment, and, therefore, will be present for scores of years.

Although the toxicological risks for many PFAS have not yet been determined with confidence, PFOA and PFOS have been tested fairly extensively. Manufacturers point out that not all PFAS have the same chemical structures and toxicity. Nevertheless, the Conservation Law Foundation and other environmental advocates are petitioning for regulation of the entire class.

Because PFAS haven’t yet fallen under most federal regulatory schemes, many states have been “filling the gap” with guidance and regulatory action. In Maine, PFAS are already the subject of guidance and regulations by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The most recent DEP Remedial Action Guidelines (RAGs, 2018) for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS issued by Maine include:

  • Soil RAGs as low as 0.0095 ppm
  • Groundwater residential use RAG as low as 0.40 ppb
  • Fish tissue guidelines for recreational anglers as low as 0.052 ppm

And under DEP Chapter 418, Screening Levels for Beneficial Use have been set for certain PFAS as low as 0.0025 ppm.

It is clear there will be more regulation and legislation at federal and state levels. Further, litigation has commenced in a number of states (including Maine) for perceived or real damages from PFAS contamination under negligence and other tort theories.

What to do? Depending on where you sit, here are a few actions to consider.

  • If you are unsure whether you use PFAS, a limited review of safety data sheets may identify PFAS chemicals.
  • Determine if you stored, used, or currently use PFAS, and consider the potential toxicity of the specific compounds and potential impact of potential regulations.
  • If you stored or used PFAS in the past, consider whether there were potential releases or residuals that could pose health risks or liability risks.
  • If you are considering purchasing a business or real property, consider whether PFAS may have been used or released on site, and the potential risk and liability issues. Note that because PFAS are not federal “hazardous substances” they are not within the scope of the standard Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
  • If you generate or ship wastes that may contain PFAS, consider voluntary testing and the possibility that testing may soon be requested or required.
  • If you use groundwater as drinking water or for production use, consider whether PFAS may be present from historic or recent uses.
  • Keep posted on national and state regulatory and legislative developments.
©2019 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.
This post was written by Kenneth F. Gray and Thomas R. Doyle of Pierce Atwood LLP.