PFAS Timeline

The EPA published its final rule designating two PFAS compounds (PFOA and PFOS), including their salts and structural isomers, as Superfund “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The rule (1) requires releases of PFOA or PFOS of one pound or more over a 24-hour period to be reported to the National Response Center and certain state, local, and tribal agencies; and (2) permits the EPA to initiate response actions and order parties to investigate and remediate PFOA and PFOS without first showing that conditions pose an imminent and substantial endangerment.

The EPA published two proposed rules aimed at strengthening its ability to address PFAS contamination under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) cleanup program. If enacted, the proposed rules would (1) modify the definition of “hazardous waste” as it applies to cleanups at permitted hazardous waste facilities; and (2) amend RCRA regulations to add nine PFAS compounds as hazardous constituents, becoming part of a list of substances identified for consideration in facility assessments and, where necessary, further investigation and cleanup.

The EPA finalized a Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) rule that eliminates the reporting exemption for de minimis amounts of PFAS and removes the de minimis exemption for all chemicals of special concern when notifying downstream manufacturers and purchasers. TRI data is annually reported to the EPA by facilities in industry sectors such as manufacturing, metal mining, electric power generation, chemical manufacturing, and hazardous waste treatment, as well as federal facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use notable quantities of TRI-listed chemicals. This new rule eliminates the de minimis exemption for TRI-listed PFAS and requires facilities to report on PFAS regardless of their concentration in mixtures, since according to the EPA, many PFAS are used in low concentrations in mixtures and the continued availability of the exemption for PFAS would permit facilities to discount those uses when determining their TRI reporting responsibilities. The rule will apply to the reporting year beginning January 1, 2024.

The EPA selected and adopted its National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives for the 2024–2027 cycle, which include an initiative to address exposure to PFAS contamination. According to the EPA, the initiative will focus on implementing the EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap to pursue those that manufactured PFAS or used PFAS in the manufacturing process, federal facilities that released PFAS, and other industrial parties that may have significantly contributed to the release of PFAS into the environment. Initial goals include:

Identifying and characterizing the extent of PFAS contamination near PFAS manufacturing/use facilities in the country, using authorities such as CERCLA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act.

Performing oversight of PFAS characterization and control activities at federal facilities.

Continuing to address alleged violations and imminent and substantial endangerment situations by major PFAS manufacturers, federal facilities, and other industrial parties.

The EPA has automatically added nine more PFAS chemicals to its Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements after lifting confidential business restrictions on four of them and finalizing a toxicity value for five other substances. Facilities releasing the nine additional PFAS are now mandated to start reporting 2023 releases, with reporting forms due July 1, 2024. With these additions, there are now over 180 PFAS chemicals that regulated entities must report under the TRI.

EPA issued a proposal to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA. The proposed rulemaking would require entities to immediately report releases of PFOA and PFOS to the National Response Center, state or Tribal emergency response commission, and the local or Tribal emergency planning committee. However, entities would not be required to report past releases of PFOA or PFOS. 

EPA announced that it is taking steps toward regulating PFAS in wastewater discharges, including proposing health-based aquatic life criteria for two well-known PFAS, outlining how PFAS monitoring should be included in EPA-issued permits, and proposing a screening method for thousands of PFAS. EPA is recommending a 49 milligram-per-liter maximum concentration of PFOA and 3 milligram-per-liter maximum concentration of PFOS in freshwater.

EPA issued a direct final rule amending the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule to reference the new ASTM International standard E1527–21, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs): Phase I ESA Process. The ASTM E1527–21 standard provides that PFAS may be added to the scope of the Phase I ESA as a “Non-Scope Consideration” if requested. Because it received adverse comments, EPA may withdraw the direct final rule and proceed with a proposed rulemaking.

EPA published the final version of its human health toxicity assessment for GenX chemicals, in addition to the previously published health assessments for PFOS, PFOA, and PFBS. Additional assessments are ongoing for PFBA, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFDA. Health advisories based on the final toxicity assessments for GenX and PFBS are expected to be published soon.

The PFAS Action Act of 2021 passed the lower chamber of the House with bipartisan support, 241-183. The legislation would require EPA to establish national drinking water standards for PFAS.

EPA announced an update to the Drinking Water Treatability Database with new references and treatment options for PFAS. The update is expected to help states, tribes, local governments, and water utilities make informed decisions to manage PFAS in their communities.

The EPA proposes to regulate PFOA and PFOS in drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel files a lawsuit against 17 defendants, including 3M and DuPont, for the damages and injury to the state caused by PFAS contamination.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources grants a petition to regulate 26 PFAS. The decision includes an additional 10 PFAS compounds posing a threat to Wisconsin’s groundwater as a source of drinking water, bringing the total to 36 PFAS.

The Center for Disease Control and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry announced that they had “established cooperative agreements with seven partners to study the human health effects of exposures to PFAS through drinking water at locations across the nation.”

Vermont passes Act 21, which requires approximately 650 Public Community and Non-Transient and Non-Community water systems to test for PFAS.

The City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota and 3M reach a settlement over the drinking water contamination lawsuit. 3M will pay $2.7 million to Lake Elmo's water account and will “transfer 180 acres of farmland” to Lake Elmo which is “valued at $1.8 million.”

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality announces an official state standard (70 parts per trillion) for concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.

Vermont issues health advisory levels for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpA. The sum of all five compounds should not exceed 20 parts per trillion in drinking water.

The Minnesota Attorney General settles its lawsuit with 3M. The settlement requires 3M Company to pay $850 million to the state in the form of a restricted grant, which will be administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Department of Natural Resources.

The Fire Fighting Foam Coalition’s 2017 fact sheet states that the short-chain (C6) fluorosurfactants which are replacing the longer C8 in AFFF are “low in toxicity and not considered to be bioaccumulative based on current regulatory criteria.”

Abnormally high levels of PFAS found in Belmont, Michigan become one of the first places where PFAS contamination catches the attention of the national media. The contamination is attributed to Wolverine Worldwide, a footwear company that had used to Scotchgard to “treat shoe leather” and had dumped their waste into the area.

The jury in Vigneron v. E.I. DuPont awards $10.5 million in punitive damages to the plaintiff.

EPA publishes a voluntary health advisory levels for PFOA and PFOS at 70 parts per trillion.

An Ohio resident files a lawsuit against DuPont in the Southern District of Ohio alleging that PFOA emitted from its Washington Works Plant near Parkersburg, West Virginia gave him testicular cancer (Vigneron v. E.I. DuPont).

The Minnesota Attorney General files a lawsuit against 3M seeking payment for natural resource damages caused by 3M’s disposal of PFAS in the East Metropolitan Area of the Twin Cities.

EPA issues a non-enforceable “lifetime drinking water health advisory,” recommending a maximum of 200 parts per trillion for PFOS and 400 parts per trillion for PFOA.

EPA settles a lawsuit with DuPont requiring DuPont to pay $10.25 million in civil penalties and perform Supplemental Environmental Projects worth $6.25 million.

EPA files two complaints against DuPont in July and December for violations related to PFOA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA). The lawsuits allege DuPont withheld information about PFOA from residents near the company’s plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, where the chemical contaminated local waters. EPA said DuPont had information on PFOA’s potential risk as early as 1981 but did not report it.

In the Leach class action against DuPont, a West Virginia judge rules that PFOA is “toxic and hazardous to humans,” and orders DuPont to pay for medical testing of up to 50,000 people.

Minnesota Department of Health develops Health Based Values for PFOA and PFOS, the Department also begins partnering with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to investigate PFAS in drinking water near the 3M Cottage Grove plant and related legacy waste disposal sites.

3M chemists patent a fire fighting foam that does not contain PFOS or any other persistent ingredients.

A highly cited article in Environmental Science & Technology, published by the American Chemical Society, reported “for the first time, on the global distribution of PFOS.” The study concluded that “PFOS were widely detected in wildlife throughout the world” and that “PFOS is widespread in the environment.”

The federal court in the West Virginia litigation orders DuPont to submit 110,000 pages of documents dated back to the 1950s of DuPont’s “private internal correspondence, medical and health reports and confidential studies conducted by DuPont scientists.”

In the early 1980s, DuPont purchased parcels of land in West Virginia owned by brothers Wilbur Earl, Jim and Jack Tennant. In 1984, the company began dumping waste containing PFOA into an unlined landfill in one of the hollows. Private plaintiffs sued DuPont in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, alleging several hundred cows died after drinking from streams and ponds near an alleged DuPont PFOA landfill.

According to a document on file with the EPA, 3M “knew as early as the 1970s that PFAS was accumulating in human blood.”

U.S. Navy scientists begin working with 3M to develop AFFF.