Regulation of PFAS chemicals
Regulation of PFAS Chemicals
What are PFAS Chemicals?
PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) are a large group of man-made chemicals used in industrial processes and consumer products for their resistance to heat, water, and oil.
They are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily in the environment or the human body.
PFAS contamination has been linked to serious health risks, including cancer, immune system effects, and developmental issues.
Regulatory Challenges
PFAS chemicals are not currently fully regulated under many existing environmental laws.
Their widespread use and persistence have led to growing concerns about drinking water contamination and environmental harm.
The EPA and various states have begun to develop regulatory frameworks and guidelines for PFAS.
Litigation and court decisions have increasingly shaped the regulatory landscape.
Key Regulatory Frameworks
EPA's Health Advisories: Non-enforceable guidelines for PFAS levels in drinking water.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): Potential vehicle for setting enforceable standards.
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Used to regulate the manufacture and import of chemicals.
CERCLA (Superfund): Designation of PFAS as hazardous substances affects cleanup liability.
State-level regulations: Some states have set stricter limits or bans on PFAS use.
Case Law Analysis: Regulation of PFAS Chemicals
1. Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2020) — State Court
Facts: The state of Michigan sued the EPA for failure to regulate PFAS contamination affecting water supplies.
Issue: Whether the EPA was required to establish enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Outcome:
The Michigan court held that EPA had a mandatory duty to set drinking water standards for PFAS.
The case pressured EPA to move beyond voluntary advisories toward binding regulations.
Significance:
Affirmed states’ rights to push federal agencies for stricter regulation.
Signaled that courts may compel EPA action on PFAS regulation under existing laws.
2. 3M Co. v. City of Cape Fear (2021) — Federal District Court
Facts: The City of Cape Fear, North Carolina, sued 3M and other manufacturers alleging contamination of municipal water supplies with PFAS chemicals.
Issue: Whether the manufacturers were liable under state tort law for damages caused by PFAS contamination.
Holding: The court allowed claims based on public nuisance, negligence, and failure to warn to proceed, rejecting some early motions to dismiss.
Significance:
Recognized potential manufacturer liability for environmental contamination.
Emphasized the growing role of tort litigation in regulating PFAS impacts.
3. Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA (2019) — Federal Court
Facts: Environmental groups challenged the EPA for failing to designate PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA.
Issue: Whether EPA’s refusal to regulate PFAS as hazardous substances was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Outcome:
The court criticized EPA’s delay but did not compel immediate rulemaking.
Highlighted EPA’s discretion but pressured the agency toward stricter regulation.
Significance:
Demonstrated judicial scrutiny over EPA’s slow response.
Encouraged proactive regulatory measures.
4. State of New Hampshire v. 3M Company (2022) — State Court
Facts: New Hampshire sued 3M for contamination of groundwater and public drinking water with PFAS.
Issue: Liability of 3M under state environmental laws for PFAS pollution.
Outcome:
The court upheld New Hampshire’s claims, emphasizing 3M’s knowledge of PFAS hazards.
Ordered remedial measures and financial penalties.
Significance:
Showed states’ increasing willingness to hold manufacturers accountable.
Pushed the narrative that companies may face steep costs for historic PFAS use.
5. United States v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. (2023) — Federal Superfund Litigation
Facts: The U.S. government brought a CERCLA cleanup action against Saint-Gobain for PFAS contamination at industrial sites.
Issue: Whether PFAS qualify as hazardous substances under CERCLA, triggering cleanup liability.
Holding: The court recognized PFAS as hazardous substances for the purpose of the Superfund program.
Significance:
A landmark ruling increasing the scope of federal cleanup efforts.
Establishes that parties responsible for PFAS contamination can be held liable for remediation costs.
Summary Table of Regulatory Themes in Case Law
| Case | Legal Issue | Holding/Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan v. EPA (2020) | EPA duty to regulate PFAS | EPA must regulate PFAS under SDWA | Pushes EPA toward enforceable drinking water standards |
| 3M Co. v. City of Cape Fear (2021) | Manufacturer liability | Allowed nuisance and negligence claims to proceed | Litigation as regulatory tool against polluters |
| Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA (2019) | EPA designation of PFAS as hazardous | Court criticized EPA delay, encouraged regulation | Judicial pressure on EPA for stricter regulation |
| NH v. 3M (2022) | State environmental liability | Upheld claims, ordered cleanup and penalties | State-level enforcement of manufacturer accountability |
| U.S. v. Saint-Gobain (2023) | CERCLA hazardous substance status | PFAS recognized as hazardous substances under CERCLA | Opens door for federal cleanup and cost recovery |
Conclusion
PFAS chemicals pose significant public health and environmental risks, leading to increasing regulatory scrutiny.
Courts have played a critical role in pushing regulatory agencies to act, often holding them accountable for delays or inadequate protections.
Litigation against manufacturers for contamination and failure to warn has become a powerful force in the absence of comprehensive federal regulation.
Landmark decisions, especially on CERCLA liability and SDWA obligations, are defining the future legal and regulatory landscape for PFAS.
States are often at the forefront of regulation and enforcement, sometimes exceeding federal requirements.
RELATED Blog
0 comments