In April 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated PFOA and PFOS (two chemicals that are part of the PFAS family of compounds) as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This change in designation - from “pollutants and contaminants” to “hazardous substances” - had substantial policy implications. The EPA can now require that Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) investigate and address PFOA and PFAS contamination. Parties that are subsequently deemed responsible for having PFOA and/or PFOS-contaminated sites are now subject to the full suite of CERCLA regulatory action.
EPA’s TSCA Ruling For PFAS: Calls On An Unprecedented Number Of Manufacturers To Report
Last week, Taylor Research Group (TRG) attended the Environmental Law Institute’s (ELI) monthly PFAS webinar briefing for a timely discussion on the EPA’s one-time Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) data-collecting rule for PFAS. More specifically, by May 2025, any entity that has manufactured or imported PFAS or PFAS-containing articles since January 1, 2011 must electronically report its PFAS usage, production volumes, disposal, exposures, and hazards. In what has become a common theme in presentations regarding PFAS regulation, TRG’s main takeaway is that manufacturers must diligently make a plan for record keeping and recording if they hope to avoid stiff penalties.
PFAS Regulation for Consumer Products: Immediate Action Recommended
Last week’s iteration of the Environmental Law Institute’s (ELI) monthly PFAS webinar focused on state PFAS regulations for consumer products. Echoing the message from prior meetings, the speakers implored manufacturers in this realm to conduct due diligence investigations in preparation for forthcoming enforcement. However, they noted that significant challenges exist for even the most well-intentioned producers. Namely, state regulations are often vague and broad, and PFAS release and exposure during the manufacturing process can be unforeseen and quite surprising. This creates an environment that can lead to hesitation and inaction, decisions that can ultimately be detrimental and costly.
Just the Beginning: EPA’s MCL Announcement for PFAS Indicates that Additional Regulatory Action is Imminent
We are once again eager to share our takeaways from the Environmental Law Institute’s (ELI) monthly PFAS webinar. This month’s speakers provided an in-depth discussion on the EPA’s recent announcement that established Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for six PFAS: PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA, as well as mixtures containing two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS. This very informative session went beyond the immediate effects of this designation and, instead, largely focused on what is still in store for PFAS regulatory action. The theme that resonated most with us is that this decision is just the beginning.
PFAS: When Confronted With Potential Liability, Know Your History
Last month, on the heels of our trilogy of blogs related to the Impact of PFAS on Environmental Litigation (Virtual) Conference hosted by Perrin Conferences, TRG attended a subsequent PFAS webinar, which is the subject of this week’s blog.
“Do the Homework on Corporate History” was one of six key takeaway points from the Identification of PFAS Sites and Questions of Legal and Insurance Coverage webinar hosted by Perrin Conferences. The webinar cautioned that, while companies attempting to understand their liability often turn first to insurance archaeology, instead their initial step should be to fully understand their own corporate history and how they became liable in the first place. The webinar pointed out that sales, acquisitions, and mergers all may have affected liability, as well as any active insurance policies.
PFAS: Civilian Usage and Disposal
This week we continue our series of blogs reflecting on material covered in the “Impact of PFAS on Environmental Litigation (Virtual) Conference” hosted by Perrin Conferences by examining the growing focus on civilian usage and disposal of PFAS.
When certain PFAS chemicals first became cause for concern, it was the manufacturers of the chemicals themselves—firms such as DuPont and 3M—that were the focus of litigation. As focus broadened to end-users and disposers of chemicals that contained harmful PFAS, it was largely the military that came under scrutiny due to its widespread use of AFFF firefighting foam, as we described in last week’s blog. Today, however, there is also widespread focus on civil users, distributors, and disposers of PFAS-containing material, a point driven home by conference presenters.
PFAS: Military Usage Still a Major Concern
Last week we began our series of blogs reflecting on material covered in the Impact of PFAS on Environmental Litigation (Virtual) Conference hosted by Perrin Conferences, with a look at the federal government’s recent actions to address PFAS in the environment. This week, we’ll take another look at military sources of PFAS contamination. TRG has been a pioneer in researching historical usage and disposal of PFAS end-products such as AFFF during the last decade. In the coming years, we expect our research into AFFF and other PFAS and PFAS-containing chemicals to continue to grow, as our current and future clients in both government and the private sector seek out our in-depth knowledge of the relevant federal, state, and local records and our ability to provide detailed information relevant to their cases.
PFAS: Bold Actions by EPA Expected to Create New Liabilities
When it comes to PFAS contamination liability, be proactive. That was one of several important messages conveyed at the Impact of PFAS on Environmental Litigation (Virtual) Conference hosted by Perrin Conferences, which Taylor Research Group (TRG) recently attended. Readers familiar with TRG’s work will know that research into PFAS end-product usage and disposal has been one of our specialties for many years now. Yet within environmental law these chemicals—the best known and most infamous being PFOS and PFOA*—have existed in a sort of limbo.
PFAS: As Litigation Expands, So Does Our Research
The list of toxic contaminants that spawn costly environmental litigation and propel our research projects expands constantly. One of the latest additions is the family of PFAS (per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances), which currently appear on track to have the same staying power in the world of toxic tort litigation as many of the other chemicals whose production and use we routinely document. Last year, Taylor Research Group highlighted our focus on two PFAS, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which were ingredients in firefighting foam. Since that time, this family of so-called “forever chemicals” has gained increasing attention.