Apr 222021

House Introduces PFAS Action Act of 2021

Samuel B. Boxerman and Aaron L. Flyer
, , , , ,

On Tuesday, April 13, Reps. Debbie Dingell and Fred Upton, both D-Mich., introduced the PFAS Action Act of 2021, seeking further regulation of per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS). Most notably, the bill would require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take action to address two PFAS chemicals — PFOA and PFOS — through a number of regulatory provisions: designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and requiring EPA to establish national drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS. Additionally, the bill would require EPA to place discharge limits on industrial releases of PFAS, provide $200 million annually for wastewater treatment, prohibit unsafe incineration of PFAS waste, place a moratorium on the introduction of new PFAS chemicals into commerce, require comprehensive PFAS health testing, and create a voluntary label for PFAS in cookware.

The bill was introduced with 25 bipartisan cosponsors and mirrors the PFAS Action Act of 2019, which passed the House in the last Congress.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.

Samuel B. Boxerman

Washington, D.C.

sboxerman@sidley.com

Aaron L. Flyer

Washington, D.C.

aflyer@sidley.com

You might also like
Fifth Circuit Limits EPA’s Attempts to Regulate PFAS Under Toxic Substances Control Act in Inhance Technologies v. EPA

On March 21, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) orders under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), holding that EPA had exceeded its statutory authority when it issued the orders in an attempt to regulate the manufacture of per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) by petitioner Inhance Technologies, LLC (Inhance). The Fifth Circuit’s decision comes after EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance announced its National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives for Fiscal Years 2024 – 2027, which involve increased emphasis on addressing PFAS exposure and contamination through enforcement actions and potential additional regulations.

U.S. EPA Proposes Nine PFAS Compounds as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Hazardous Constituents

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is proposing to expand its authority under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), including to extend its corrective action powers over an additional list of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Specifically, as part of the EPA PFAS Strategic Roadmap, EPA has prioritized development of a framework to regulate PFAS. In the June 2023 Spring Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda), which lists federal agencies’ planned “short-term” and “long-term” regulatory actions, EPA included the short-term action of a proposed rule listing certain PFAS as hazardous constituents under RCRA.

Challenge to Trump Administration Clean Water Act Rule Dismissed as Moot

On Wednesday, January 25, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a challenge to a 2020 rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revising regulatory requirements for water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. That rule came under challenge by environmental groups and Democratic-led states and was initially vacated by the district court but then reinstated by the Ninth Circuit in 2023 and remanded to the district court for additional review. However, on September 27, 2023, EPA promulgated a new rule that superseded the 2020 rule and replaced it with new Section 401 requirements, rendering challenges to the 2020 rule moot. Even as this 2023 rule is being challenged, the court stated that at present, there is no longer a pending controversy as to which effective relief can be granted. But because the 2020 rule was dismissed without prejudice, the court stated that if the 2023 rule is enjoined and the 2020 rule were to be resurrected, plaintiffs can reinitiate their challenge. Additional information on the issue is provided in prior posts on the vacatur here and 2023 rule here.