PFAS 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.

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.

PFAS MDL Settlements: Red Herrings For Downstream Companies

Leading up to the aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) MDL litigation bellwether trial in June 2023, questions circulated regularly about the end game for the water utilities that had filed lawsuits alleging PFAS contamination to drinking water. With several hundred utilities with pending lawsuits seeking the costs for technology needed to filter PFAS from drinking water, monitoring wells, testing equipment, disposal costs, etc., and potentially thousands of other water utilities with similar potential lawsuits, the damages seemed astronomical. So, too, did the amount of time it would take to litigate each case to get the water utilities monetary relief. These two competing forces, plus the pressure of an actual trial date looming, led Dupont and 3M to announce PFAS MDL settlements in June 2023. At $1.185 billion by Dupont and between $10.3 billion and $12.5 billion by 3M, with the intention of both settlement funds to resolve all pending and potential water utility claims in the United States, it seemed to many that a resolution had been achieved that would address PFAS in drinking water systems without burdening utility customers or the utilities themselves.

The issue, though, is that over 9,000 water utilities were estimated to be in need of treatment technology to meet the EPA’s newly proposed drinking water standards. The American Water Works Association (AMWA) reminded everyone that their own estimates of the costs of compliance to the EPA’s level would cost utilities over $3.2 billion annually. Even buying into the old joke that lawyers are horrible at math, it does not take long for one to realize the significant gap in the proposed settlement amounts and AMWA’s estimates. Water utilities accepting money under the Dupont and 3M settlement funds are not all going to receive 100% of the necessary funding for remediation. How then will this deficit be resolved?

Water utilities will be reluctant to pass on all of the costs to customers, although pricing increases could provide a stopgap measure for water utilities on top of the MDL settlement funds. State or even federal funding may be available under grant, loan or other programs that can also assist. However, when the dust settles, it is likely that water utilities are going to look to a particular group of parties to pursue damages from – companies that discharged PFAS into waterways that fed into the water utility facilities. Lawsuits already abound nationally filed by private citizens against such companies for property damage, bodily injury and medical monitoring. Why then would water utilities finding themselves in need of significant money to properly treat drinking water not take similar legal action? Couple this with pressure water utilities are starting to receive in the form of finding themselves sued in class action lawsuits by private citizens, and the legal notion of contribution begins to ring very true for water utilities looking to minimize their own damages in such lawsuits and find sources of funding for remediation technology.

Companies that have historically discharged effluent into waterways that feed drinking water supplies must therefore keep all of the above in mind and not be lulled into a false sense of complacency that the Dupont and 3M settlements in the MDL are going to mean the end of PFAS drinking water litigation. I predict quite the opposite.

It is of the utmost importance that businesses along the whole commerce chain that have or believe that they might have used PFAS in certain processes take steps now to understand 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. Companies that did not manufacture PFAS, but merely utilized PFAS in their manufacturing processes, are 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. The only way to manage future risk is to fully understand what that risk picture looks like, and companies would be well-advised to invest in proper diligence for the PFAS risk question.

Multistate Coalition Supports EPA’s Proposed Revisions to the Safer Choice Standard

As reported in our December 5, 2023, memorandum, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed updates to the Safer Choice Standard on November 14, 2023, that include a name change to the Safer Choice and Design for the Environment (DfE) Standard (Standard), an update to the packaging criteria, the addition of a Safer Choice certification for cleaning service providers, a provision allowing for preterm partnership termination under exceptional circumstances, and the addition of several product and functional use class requirements. 88 Fed. Reg. 78017. On January 16, 2024, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that, alongside a coalition of 12 attorneys general, he submitted a comment letter that:

Supports EPA’s proposed revisions to its Safer Choice Standard;
Recommends that EPA not allow products with plastic primary packaging to use the Safer Choice label or DfE logo;
Recommends that if EPA does allow products with plastic primary packaging to use the label and logo, EPA should prohibit the use of chemical recycling in meeting the proposed standard’s plastic packaging recycled content requirements; and
Calls on EPA to exclude any products or packaging that contain any per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), “whether intentionally introduced or not.”

Key Developments in Environmental Law and Policy in 2023, and What’s Ahead in 2024 [PODCAST]

On this episode of the Bracewell Environmental Law Monitor, we look back at the significant developments in environmental and natural resources law and policy in 2023, as well as look ahead to what’s to come in 2024. Co-hosts Daniel Pope and Taylor Stuart talk with Ann Navaro and Tim Wilkins, partners in Bracewell’s environment, lands and resources practice, about a range of topics, such as climate and environmental justice, renewable energy advancements, regulatory developments and much more.

EPISODE HIGHLIGHTS

[01:44] Big Developments in 2023: The Biden administration’s top priorities have been climate and environmental justice. The big development of 2023 on the climate front has been on the methane side rather than the carbon dioxide side. Regarding environmental justice, the Biden administration and NGOs have been really pushing to apply justice factors in enforcement, in cleanups, new rulemaking, permitting, issuance of grants and loans, and the like.

[06:59] A Significant Year for Jurisdiction Under the Clean Water Act: Almost a year ago, the Biden administration issued its definition of “Waters of the United States.” Subsequently, the Supreme Court issued another decision interpreting Waters of the United States in the Sackett case and essentially eviscerated one of the bases for the Biden administration’s Waters of the US rulemaking. Litigation is ongoing.

[09:33] Congress Amended the National Environmental Policy Act and the Fiscal Responsibility Act: This was enormous, as core provisions had never seen substantive amendments. There are mixed reviews of what that amendment to NEPA accomplished.

[13:41] Renewable Energy: There’s been advancement in renewable energy projects and trying to permit those projects and an emphasis on promoting renewable energy. For example, for offshore wind, in this year and in prior years of the Biden administration, there’s been a lot of advancement on leasing.

[21:57] On the Horizon in Environmental Law in 2024: Ann shares that the US Army Corps of Engineers could revise Nationwide Permit 12. Tim shares that the White House is reviewing EPA’s CERCLA hazardous substance listing for two of the leading PFAS chemicals, and the listing will go final sometime early in 2024. In addition, the SEC’s semi-annual rulemaking agenda for April 2024 promises to include proposed climate disclosure rules for publicly traded companies.

PFAS State AG Lawsuits Update: Delaware Enters the Fray

2023 has proven to be an extremely busy year for PFAS state AG lawsuits seeking environmental pollution remediation costs from PFAS manufacturers and AFFF manufacturers. We previously wrote that Illinois (February), Maine (April), Kentucky (April), Rhode Island, Arizona, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington (all in May), South Carolina (July), and Tennessee and Washington DC (August) were the latest states seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in PFAS remediation costs. Now, Delaware has joined the fray, bringing the number of state PFAS lawsuits to close to 25 cases, with more expected to be filed. While the lawsuits target a narrowly tailored set of companies, lawsuits in other states have already demonstrated that downstream commerce corporations are at risk of being involved in lawsuits seeking hundreds of millions of dollars.

PFAS State AG Lawsuits

The Delaware Attorney General lawsuit seeks PFAS remediation costs from 3M and various AFFF manufacturers. The lawsuit specifically details the extent to which several types of PFAS are found in groundwater, surface water, drinking water, waste treatment byproducts, and various other environmental impact avenues. There is one unique aspect of the Delaware lawsuit as compared to other state lawsuits in that the Delaware case only specifically mentions PFAS contamination at New Castle County Airport and at the Dover Air Force Base. Other state AG lawsuits have more broadly claimed that PFAS contamination is widespread throughout the states. Delaware is seeking costs “in excess of $1,000,000” related to investigating, cleaning up, restoring, treating, and monitoring the state’s contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil and other natural resources.

Implications For Downstream Manufacturers

While the latest state PFAS lawsuit targets PFAS manufacturers and AFFF manufacturers, companies should not dismiss the lawsuits as events unlikely to impact them in any way. On the contrary, in other states, including California, companies have been directly named as defendants in lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in PFAS remediation costs. Corporations should not ignore the pollution and environmental contamination issues that PFAS pose, as states, federal and state regulatory agencies, and even private citizens are actively seeking damages from companies that they believe placed PFAS into the environment. All companies of all types would be well advised to conduct a complete compliance audit to best understand areas of concern for PFAS liability issues, and ways to mitigate PFAS concerns.

October PFAS Regulatory Update

In October 2023, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized two separate but analogous rulemakings – one under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and one under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). Both rulemakings pertain to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), commonly referred to as “forever chemicals.” PFAS are manmade chemicals that have been widely used in industry and consumer products since their inception in the late 1930s. PFAS are most known for their resistance to tricky substances such as grease, water, and oil and have been commonly used in a variety of products like cleaning products, water and stain resistant fabrics, nonstick cookware, medical devices, firefighting foam, beauty products, and even things like microwave popcorn bags and pizza boxes.

These rulemakings are significant because they place broad recordkeeping and reporting requirements on facilities that may not have previous experience with either environmental statute. Under the new TSCA rule, any entity that manufactures or has manufactured (including import or previously imported) PFAS or PFAS-containing articles in any year since January 1, 2011, must now report certain information to EPA. Additionally, under the new EPCRA rule, facilities that use more than 100 pounds of PFAS annually must comply with Toxics Release Inventory (“TRI”) reporting obligations and provide downstream businesses with notifications that products may contain PFAS.

Broad PFAS Reporting under TSCA

Considered one of the most significant rulemakings of the year, on October 11, 2023, EPA finalized a rule under TSCA Section 8(a)(7) requiring any person that manufactures (including import) or has manufactured (including imported) PFAS or PFAS-containing articles in any year since January 1, 2011, to electronically report information regarding “PFAS uses, production volumes, byproducts, disposal, exposures, and existing information on environmental or health effects” through EPA’s agency-wide Chemical Data Exchange (“CDX”) portal. The new rule, effective November 13, 2023, triggers specific reporting dates and deadlines depending on the entity’s size and previous and/or current usage of PFAS.

The first of the reporting dates under the new rule applies to any entity, including small entities, that have manufactured and/or currently manufacture (including imported or currently import) PFAS in any year since January 1, 2011. These entities will have 18 months from the effective date of the rule to report PFAS data to the EPA. The second reporting date applies to “small manufacturers” as defined under 40 CFR 704.3 whose reporting obligations are exclusively from article imports. Entities meeting this definition will have 24 months from the effective date of the rule to report PFAS data to EPA. These dates are estimated to fall in May 2025 and November 2025, respectively.

This rule is likely most applicable to those in the electronics, food packaging, and automotive industries, but will also likely ripple to many other types of industries, including those that manufacture and/or import items such as textiles, circuit boards, wires, cables, and pharmaceuticals.

If you believe you may be impacted by this new rule, we recommend developing a strategy immediately to determine whether your company has manufactured or imported PFAS since January 1, 2011. Additionally, if your company has acquired another company since January 1, 2011, we also recommend reviewing that company’s documentation to determine whether there may be any additional reporting requirements triggered.

PFAS Reporting to the Toxics Release Inventory under EPCRA

On October 20, 2023, just a week after the TSCA PFAS rulemaking was finalized, EPA finalized a second PFAS rulemaking under EPCRA. This rule revised the TRI program to impose two new sets of reporting obligations related to 189 specified PFAS. Scheduled to go into effect on November 30, 2023 (and for annual reporting purposes beginning January 1, 2024), the new rule now requires:

An annual reporting obligation to EPA for facilities that use more than 100 pounds of PFAS annually, and
A requirement for business-to-business downstream notifications of the presence of PFAS in certain products

These new requirements are significant because the previously applicable de minimis exception that exempted products containing less than 1% of PFAS (or 0.1% for PFAS qualifying as carcinogens, such as PFOA) from being considered for either reporting or notification purposes, is now removed. Now, under this new rule, any quantity of the 189 specified PFAS counts towards the 100-pound threshold and triggers the downstream notification obligation. While the new rule only applies to 189 specified PFAS, EPA retains the authority to add additional PFAS in the future.

This rule is significant as it could result in numerous products being newly identified as containing PFAS throughout the supply chain. Companies that manufacture, process, or otherwise use PFAS in their operations should immediately develop a strategy to better understand this new rulemaking and determine whether the TRI reporting requirements may be triggered. Additionally, companies that supply PFAS-containing products to downstream business purchasers should evaluate whether additional notifications of the presence of PFAS in the products they supply may be required.

Conclusion

These rulemakings are complex and will have significant impacts on those in the industrial and manufacturing industries. These rules are also likely just the beginning of the PFAS regulatory iceberg.

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.

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.

Tag: PFAS

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