2024

On April 19, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the pending publication of a final rule designating two widely used per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals—perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)—as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

This announcement comes approximately a year and a half after EPA initially proposed the designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances via EPA’s publication of its proposed rule in late 2022.

The coalition of law firms, including Taft, that have been working together for over a decade to lead litigation and secure settlements on behalf of those harmed by PFAS contamination, have announced another major settlement to address this “forever chemicals” contamination in U.S. drinking water…

Minnesota is seeking public comment on the development of new rules to implement recent state legislation prohibiting offers to sell, the sale, and/or distribution of any product or product component containing any intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)in the state of Minnesota, regardless of whether the product is intended for industrial, commercial, or consumer use. The law (Minnesota Session Law – 2023, Chapter 60, Article 3, Section 21, codified as Minn. Stat. § 116.943, and referred to as “Amara’s Law”) casts a wide regulation net and falls in line with Minnesota’s history of regulations addressing intentionally added PFAS in products. The law includes a provision that allows for the use of PFAS in such products, if the use is currently unavoidable, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) current public comment period is seeking input on what uses of intentionally added PFAS will qualify as “currently unavoidable uses.”

With the publication of two new proposed rules on February 8, 2024, EPA has taken the first step under its PFAS Strategic Roadmap to bring PFAS compounds under the umbrella of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”).  These proposals are designed to accomplish both short- and long-term objectives.  In the short-term, EPA’s proposals will make PFAS compounds subject to corrective action authorities at RCRA hazardous waste facilities.  This means that if a release occurs at such facilities, the owner or operator must investigate whether the contamination includes PFAS and, if so, remediate the contamination along with other hazardous constituents. In the long term, EPA’s proposals set the stage to list nine PFAS compounds as RCRA hazardous wastes. 

As regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) continues to develop at the state and federal level, an issue of significant concern is the potential for product packaging made with PFAS to impart or “leach” those PFAS into the products contained within. In a prior article in this space, Taft’s Environmental practice group outlined a recent EPA order requiring a manufacturer of fluorinated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers designed to hold various liquid products to cease producing such packaging using PFAS, out of concern for the risk of PFAS leaching into the products. Now, at least one state legislature is taking up the issue in an effort to prevent products containing PFAS as a result of leaching from entering commerce in that state.

Environmental non-profit Tennessee Riverkeeper has filed a Clean Water Act (CWA) citizen suit against the City of Lebanon alleging unlawful discharges of multiple per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from the City’s inactive municipal landfill. Riverkeeper acknowledges that the landfill has a valid NPDES permit that authorizes the discharge of treated leachate, but it nevertheless alleges that the discharges constitute a CWA violation because none of the PFAS are specifically listed as authorized “pollutants” in the facility’s permit.

Section 301(a) of the CWA generally prohibits the discharge of “any pollutant” from a point source into a water of the united states, except pursuant to a permit or in compliance with certain listed section of the CWA. “Pollutant” is defined expansively as “dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.” 33 U.S.C.A. § 1362. Thus, potential liability is broad. But it is certainly not unlimited. In cases like this, where the defendant has a permit and is not alleged to be in violation of any specific discharge limit, a citizen suit claim could face a number of potential hurdles.

On December 1, 2023, the U.S. EPA ordered Inhance Technologies LLC (Inhance) to stop producing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as part of its fluorination of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers. According to the EPA, Inhance’s fluorination process enhances the barrier properties of plastic containers, but produces nine different types of PFAS.

Fluorinated HDPE containers are used for storing household products, pesticides, and other industrial goods. In 2019, the drinking water of the town Easton, Massachusetts, tested positive for PFOA, a type of PFAS, and was traced back to a mosquitocide used by state officials. In September 2020, the EPA determined that the PFAS found in the mosquitocide emanated from the product’s HDPE plastic container, which was fluorinated by Inhance. EPA later concluded that PFOA and other PFAS chemicals in containers fluorinated by Inhance can migrate into liquid products and continue migrating over time.