Litigation risks associated with per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) continue to grow, as demonstrated by settlements over the last year in the set of claims being adjudicated in a multidistrict litigation (MDL-2873) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (“MDL”) and other recent lawsuits.
The ongoing multidistrict litigation (MDL) concerning PFAS-containing firefighter foams continues to be an actively litigated matter as well as an area of public concern. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, have garnered significant attention due to their ubiquitous nature and potential health risks. Firefighter foams have been alleged to contaminate water sources with these harmful chemicals that have raised complex issues of liability, regulation and scientific evidence in response to a rise in litigation for damages.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has been regulating new and existing chemicals for almost 50 years. Under the TSCA, the EPA was given broad authority to track the thousands of existing commercial chemicals and regulate any new chemicals before they enter the market.
The TSCA requires manufacturers that intend to use a chemical that is designated as a “significant new use” to notify the EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, import or process the chemical for that use, i.e., the “significant new use rule” (SNUR). This pre-manufacture notice requirement gives the EPA the opportunity to evaluate the potential use and, if necessary, to place restrictions on the chemical or prohibit its use to manage any risks before they can occur.
Given the ubiquity of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), new and different aspects of liability continue to trend. While many of the lawsuits involve allegations of environmental contamination or personal injury resulting from the impairment of public water systems, the landscape has expanded to other areas.
Three notable settlements from June 2023 highlight the immense scale of liability for primary manufacturers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
In the last eight months, the attorneys general of North Carolina, California, Wisconsin and Illinois have sued various primary manufacturers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as well as over a dozen secondary manufacturers of PFAS-containing products. Each lawsuit alleges that the manufacture and distribution of PFAS and PFAS-containing products has led to widespread environmental contamination and harmful exposure.
The term “phthalate” denotes a class of chemicals that have been used since the 1920s to improve the flexibility and durability of plastic. Accordingly, phthalates can be found in hundreds, if not thousands, of everyday products, ranging from food packaging to toys, medical devices, construction materials, textiles, cosmetics, soaps, and fragrances. Their ubiquity has led some to nickname them the “Everywhere Chemical.”
The Implications on EPCRA Reporting
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA) required that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) add certain poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). EPA’s final rule adding these PFAS to the TRI toxic chemicals list took effect on June 22, 2020. This marks the implementation of another important facet of EPA’s February 2019 PFAS Action Plan, which announced the agency’s intent to address the human health and economic impacts from PFAS in the environment.
PFAS Observer